Arch Sex Behav

DOI 10.1007/s10508-016-0814-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Sociosexuality, Commitment, and Sexual Desire for an Attractive

Person
David Rodrigues1,2 • Diniz Lopes1

Received: 2 January 2015 / Revised: 25 March 2016 / Accepted: 14 July 2016

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Sociosexuality refers to a personal predisposition to Keywords Sociosexuality
Commitment

engage in uncommitted sex. Romantically involved individuals Sexual attraction
Extradyadic sex
Infidelity
are more likely to engage in infidelity when more unrestricted in
their sociosexuality and less committed to their currentpartners.
However, commitment reliably predicts relationship mainte-
nance and the activation of pro-relationship behaviors, regard- Introduction
less of sociosexuality levels. In two studies (Study 1: N = 566
heterosexuals;Mage = 21.24,SD = 4.45;Study2:N = 168hetero- Sexuality is an important aspect of psychological adjustment
sexuals; Mage = 23.28,SD = 5.60),theassociation betweensocio- and happiness (Mulhall, King, Glina, & Hvidsten, 2008), influ-
sexuality and commitment was examined. Replicating previous encing mating strategies and the pursuit of potential partners
findings, men were more sociosexually unrestricted than women, (Buss,1998;Buss&Barnes,1986).Individualdifferencesinsocio-
and single individuals were more sociosexually unrestricted than sexuality, which is defined as the predisposition to engage in
their romantically involved counterparts (Study 1). Results also uncommitted sex (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991, 1992), have been
showed that more committed individuals were more restricted among the most widely researched sexuality-related constructs.
in their sociosexuality (Studies 1 and 2) and that commitment Closer to the lower end of the sociosexuality continuum, restricted
was negatively associated with physical and sexual attraction to individuals have the need for closeness and intimacy before
an attractive person, regardless of sociosexuality levels (Study engaging and being comfortable with casual sex. Inversely, toward
2). Furthermore, commitment, but not sociosexuality, predicted the upper end of this continuum unrestricted individuals feel rela-
sexualinfidelityinthecurrentrelationshipandthiseffectemerged tively comfortable and enjoy sex without closeness or intimacy.
even among sociosexually unrestricted individuals (Studies 1 and In the interpersonal relationships context, unrestricted (vs.
2). No additional gender differences were found across studies. restricted) individuals display more approachable behaviors to
These results converge with findings suggesting that individuals new acquaintances (e.g., smiling, flirting) (Simpson, Gangestad,
shift their mating strategies and restrict their sociosexuality when & Biek, 1993) and are more attracted to others who display these
in a romantic relationship and that commitment prevents rela- samebehaviors(Simpson,Wilson,& Winterheld,2004).Inroman-
tionship threatening behaviors such as sexual attraction or sexual tic relationships, unrestricted (vs. restricted) individuals are more
infidelity. likelytoengageinbothhypothetical(Seal,Agostinelli,&Hannett,
1994) and real-life infidelity behaviors (Barta & Kiene, 2005;
Ostovich& Sabini,2004; Simpson&Gangestad, 1991). As these
behaviors can have negative consequences for the relation-
ship (e.g., breakup) (Vangelisti & Gerstenberger,2004),socio-
& David Rodrigues
sexuality may be central to explaining the maintenance and sta-
[email protected]
bility of romantic relationships.
1
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IUL, Av. There is also ample evidence showing that individuals in
das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisbon, Portugal romantic relationships shift their mating strategies from short
2
Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK term to long term in order to attain their relationship goals

123
 Arch Sex Behav

(Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Commitment, referring to the 2003, 2005) and have been hypothesized to derive from evolu-
motivation to maintain the relationship (Arriaga & Agnew, tionaryfactors(Buss,1998;Buss&Schmitt,1993)andfromsocial-
2001), has been shown to predict relationship maintenance (Rus- izationandnormativegenderroles(Eagly&Wood,1999;Wood&
bult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998) by activating the pursuit of such Eagly, 2002). For instance, sexually permissive behaviors are more
goals (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999b) and preventing sociallyacceptableformenthanforwomen,afindingoftenreferred
individuals from engaging in sexual infidelity (Shaw, Rhoades, as the sexual double standard phenomenon. Even though the
Allen, Stanley, & Markman, 2013). Then, it is possible that com- existence of this phenomenon can be debatable (Marks & Fraley,
mitment restricts sociosexuality. In other words, even if socio- 2005, 2006), a systematic review of the literature supports its
sexualityisassociatedwithinfidelityinrelationships,unrestricted existence (Crawford & Popp, 2003).
individuals in a relationship can show their commitment by Despite these gender differences, research shows a greater
staying faithful to their partners. The current research exam- intra-gender, rather than inter-gender, variability in sociosex-
ined whether relational cues are associated with an accommo- uality (see Simpson et al., 2004). Regardless of gender, socio-
dation of sociosexuality. We argue that romantic commitment sexually unrestricted individuals tend to adopt short-term mat-
interacts with sociosexuality to prevent situations of relation- ing strategies, report a greater number of sex partners, prioritize
ship instability. Specifically, we argue that greater relationship different characteristics when evaluating potential partners (e.g.,
commitment is associated with less sexual infidelity in the unrestricted individuals value traits related to physical attrac-
current relationship (Studies 1 and 2) and less physical and sex- tiveness), and have sex earlier in their relationships, when com-
ual attraction towards an attractive target (Study 2), even when pared to restricted individuals (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Fletcher,
sociosexually unrestricted. Sexual infidelity is defined as any Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000;
extradyadic sexual behavior that violates the implicit or explicit Ostovich & Sabini, 2004; Petersen & Hyde, 2010; Simpson &
sexual monogamy norm, that is, behaviors associated with feel- Gangestad, 1991, 1992; Simpson et al., 2004). Asendorpf and
ings of betrayal when disclosed to the partner and perceived as Penke (2005) have also shown that sociosexuality predicts flirt-
infidelity by both members of the couple (Barta & Kiene, 2005; ing with another person, regardless of gender.
Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004; Hall & Fincham, 2006).
Romantic Involvement
Sociosexuality
Single individuals might be motivated to have sporadic sexual
encounters (e.g., hooking up), to undertake recurrent casual sex-
Sociosexuality was originally defined as a behavioral and atti-
ual encounters (e.g., one-night stands) or to have repeated sexual
tudinal predisposition to engage in casual sex and operational-
encounters (Jonason, 2013). If so, they adopt a short-term mat-
ized by the widely used Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI)
ing strategy and tend to value attributes related to immediate
(Simpson & Gangestad, 1991; see also Jackson & Kirkpatrick,
rewards such as physical attractiveness (Regan & Berscheid,
2007; Webster & Bryan, 2007). A more recent version of this
1995,1997;Regan,Levin,Sprecher,Scott,&Christopher,2000).
measure (SOI-R) (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) expands the con-
In these instances, sociosexuality predicts the frequency of casual
struct and suggests that sociosexuality comprises three interde-
sex and the total number of partners (greater among unrestricted
pendent components: (1) behaviors, referring to behavioral ten-
individuals) (Ostovich & Sabini, 2004; Penke & Asendorpf,
dencies and personal histories of casual sex, (2) attitudes, refer-
2008).
ring to the evaluative disposition toward uncommitted sex,
When single individuals are motivated to develop a romantic
influenced by socialization, and (3) desire, referring to the inter-
relationship, they adopt a long-term mating strategy. In such
est in casual sex often associated with sexual arousal and sexual
instances, unrestricted individuals tend to value attributes related
fantasies. Averaging these components results in a global socio-
to social visibility (e.g., physical attractiveness), whereas more
sexuality score. Below, we review research that shows the asso-
restricted individuals tend to value attributes related to rela-
ciations between gender, romantic involvement, relationship
tionship stability (e.g., faithfulness, compatibility) (Simpson &
quality, and sociosexuality.
Gangestad, 1991). For example, Simpson and Gangestad (1992)
showed that, regardless of gender, unrestricted individuals value
Gender Differences more physically and sexually attractive partners, who also prove
more charismatic and less dependable. In contrast, restricted
Research has consistently shown that men, compared to women, individuals are more oriented toward a stable relationship and
have more unrestricted sociosexuality (Jackson & Kirkpatrick, value less attractive and charismatic partners that are kinder and
2007; Schmitt, 2003, 2005; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) and more affectionate. The fact that different mating strategies lead
report more unrestricted behaviors, attitudes, and desires (Fisher, individuals to value distinct attributes does not necessarily imply
2009; Petersen & Hyde,2011; Sprecher, Treger, & Sakaluk, 2013). they settle for the first person that meets their needs. For instance,
These gender differences are cross-culturally robust (Schmitt, unrestricted individuals may strive to choose the most attractive

123
Arch Sex Behav

partner they can, whereas restricted individuals may strive to tionships, due to its association with relationship quality (Rus-
choose a partner that offers them the greatest security and com- bult et al., 1998).
mitment (e.g., Simpson et al., 2004).
Commitment and Sociosexuality

Romantic Relationship Quality Commitment is broadly defined as the motivation to remain

in a long-term relationship (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001; Stanley,
When individuals are romantically involved, differences in Rhoades, & Whitton,2010)andisa central variable oftheempir-
sociosexuality can be associated with differences in relationship ically robust Investment Model (Rusbult, 1980, 1983). Within
quality. Research shows that unrestricted individuals tend to this theoretical model, greater relationship satisfaction, greater
develop shorter relationships with lesser quality (e.g., fewer investments applied in the relationship, and the perception of
investments) and to have greater difficulties in settling down, in alternatives as having lesser quality promote greater relationship
contrast to their restricted counterparts (Jones, 1998; Simpson & commitment. Regardless of gender, commitment has been con-
Gangestad, 1991; Simpson et al., 2004). Importantly, sociosex- sistently shown to predict happiness, sexual adjustment, inti-
uality also seems to predict extradyadic sexual desire and sexual macy, couple well-being, and relationship maintenance (for meta-
behavior, such that unrestricted individuals are more likely to analyses, see Le & Agnew, 2003; Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, &
engage in infidelity behaviors (e.g., exchanging phone numbers, Mutso, 2010; Rusbult et al., 1998). When faced with a potential
asking for a date, sexual infidelity) (Seal et al., 1994). This sug- threat to the stability of the relationship, commitment promotes
gests that unrestricted individuals would be more likely to the activation of pro-relationship behaviors (Rusbult & Buunk,
engage in infidelity behaviors, presumably due to lack of inti- 1993). Derogation is one of these behaviors, whereby roman-
macy or investments in their relationships. tically involved individuals feel less attracted (Johnson & Rus-
However, this might not be necessarily the case. Unrestricted bult, 1989; Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990) and spend less
individuals are as sexually invested in their relationships and time attending to attractive others (Miller, 1997). For instance,
theydo not show greatersexual accessibilityofflirtingwithalter- although arousal sometimes signals sexual or romantic attrac-
natives others, when compared to restricted individuals (Tem- tion (Foster, Witcher, Campbell, & Green, 1998), this effect
pelhof & Allen, 2008). This converges with the notion that indi- occurs especially for single individuals and not for those in a
viduals strategically shift their mating strategies in order to attain romantic relationship (Meston & Frohlich, 2003).
their goals (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Indeed, individuals This suggests that commitment plays an important role on
are influenced not only by biological factors, but also by personal the decision to actually act upon the predisposition for casual
motivations, predispositions, needs, and their immediate social sex. Supporting this reasoning, recent studies have shown that
context (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). In this sense, indi- more committed individuals are less likely to engage in infi-
viduals motivated to maintain their romantic relationship may delity (Martins et al., 2016; Rodrigues, Lopes, & Pereira, 2016)
accommodate personal dispositions (e.g., unrestricted sociosex- and this seems to be independent of sociosexuality (Mattingly
uality) to situational or relational cues (e.g., being in a relation- et al., 2011). When considering the possibility of engaging in
ship with a committed partner) in order to prevent behaviors that casual extradyadic sex, committed individuals seem to con-
can potentially threaten the stability of their relationship (e.g., template the long-term consequences of such behavior for all
sexual infidelity). Partially supporting this argument, research aspects of their current relationship and compare them with its
shows that sociosexuality is influenced by being in a relationship short-term benefits. Commitment acts to dismiss such predis-
(Asendorpf & Penke, 2005; Schmitt, 2005), such that sociosexu- position and transform personal motivations for casual sex into
ality becomes more restricted when individuals initiate a new a relational motivation (Drigotas, Rusbult, & Verette, 1999a),
relationship and becomes more unrestricted when they end a thus preventing both men and women from engaging in extra-
relationship (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). dyadic sex (Shaw et al., 2013). By helping individuals refrain
The fact that unrestricted sociosexuality is not a sufficient from engaging in such behavior, commitment provides them
condition for infidelity is of great importance for our study, since with security and trust that they will behave similarly in future
infidelity arises out of dissatisfaction with the relationship, feel- situations (Drigotas et al., 1999b). This clearly conveys commit-
ing neglected by the partner, and anger or boredom over sexu- ment as a relational variable that influences relationship stability
ality within the relationship (Barta & Kiene, 2005; Shackelford for both genders, by motivating them to protect their relationship
& Buss, 1997). Hence, even though unrestricted individuals are against a perceived potential threat (i.e., feelings of attraction to
more likely to engage in infidelity behaviors, actually pursuing an attractive other). Thus, it is an important variable to take into
such behaviors requires motivation (Barta & Kiene, 2005) that account when analyzing sociosexuality within romantic
can come from having a poorer relationship quality. Relation- relationships.
ship commitment can serve as a possible explanation why unre- From this reasoning, we argue sociosexuality to be a trait
stricted individuals become more restricted in romantic rela- that influences sexuality among single individuals. However,

123
 Arch Sex Behav

when romantically involved, individuals’ sociosexuality should areas (47.4 %) and completed high school (56.6 %), an under-
be influenced by relational cues and by personal motivations to graduate degree (36 %) or their Masters/Ph.D. (4.4 %). Half of
remain in the relationship. Hence, sociosexuality should adapt to the sample was single and not currently dating another person
external relational cues and interplaywith relational motivations (47 %), whereas the other half was involved in a consensual
such as commitment to prevent sexual infidelity or feelings of monogamous romantic relationship for a mean length of 25.55
attraction.Weexaminedtheseideasintwostudies.Study1focused months (SD = 24.23).
on the interaction between sociosexuality and commitment, as
wellastheirrolein preventingsexual infidelity.Study2extended
Measures
this to a setting in which individuals were asked to report their
attraction to an attractive person. Gender differences were also
Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R)
examined in both studies.
The SOI-R (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) has nine items (men:
a = .83; women: a = .83) that assess the predisposition to
Study 1
engage in casual sex. This measure comprises three compo-
nents: (1) behavior (3 items; men a = .85, women a = .84; e.g.,
In line with the typical findings reported in the literature, we
‘‘With how many different partners have you had sex within the
hypothesized that:
past 12 months?’’), (2) attitudes (3 items; men: a = .87, women:
H1 Men should report more unrestricted sociosexuality than a = .83; e.g.,‘‘Sex without love is ok’’), and (3) desire (3 items;
women(Buss,1998;Buss&Schmitt,1993;Schmitt,2003,2005); men: a = .86, women: a = .85; e.g., ‘‘How often do you have
fantasies about having sex with someone with whom you do not
H2 Single individuals should report more unrestricted socio-
have a committed romantic relationship?’’). Averaging the items
sexuality than romantically involved individuals (Gangestad &
within each component results in a mean score for that com-
Simpson, 2000; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008).
ponent and averaging all items results in a mean global score.
Following the evidence that individuals accommodate their Higher mean scores indicate unrestricted sociosexuality, that
sociosexuality to relational cues (Asendorpf & Penke, 2005; is, a greater predisposition to engage in casual sex.
Schmitt, 2005), we hypothesized that: This measure had to be validated in Portugal beforehand.
The items were translated by a team of social psychologists
H3 Commitment and sociosexuality should be negatively
and back-translated by a Portuguese native speaker with resi-
associated, such that more committed individuals should report
dence in the US Disagreements were resolved through dis-
more restricted sociosexuality.
cussion (90 % agreement). Response scales were transformed
Furthermore, if commitment acts to prevent individuals from to 7-point scales for behavior (1 = 0 to 7 = 10 or more), atti-
engaging in infidelity (Drigotas et al., 1999b; Martins et al., 2016; tudes (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree), and desire
Rodrigues et al., 2016; Shaw et al., 2013), we hypothesized that: (1 = Rarely; 7 = Frequently). Validation results for the Portuguese
SOI-R are presented in‘‘Results’’section.
H4 Commitment should predict extradyadic sex in the cur-
rent relationship, such that more committed individuals should
Commitment
be less likely to have engaged in sexual infidelity;
H5 Commitmenteffectsinextradyadicsexshouldoccuramong We used the seven-items Commitment scale (a = .89; e.g.,‘‘I
unrestricted individuals, such that more committed individuals want our relationship to last for a very long time’’) from the
should indicate less sexual infidelity when sociosexually Investment Model scale (Rusbult et al., 1998; Portuguese adap-
unrestricted. tation and validation by Rodrigues & Lopes, 2013b). Responses
to each item were given on a 7-point scale (1 = Do not agree at
Relying on intra-gender variability (Simpson et al., 2004),
all; 7 = Agree completely), and averaging all items results in a
all these effects should hold true for both men and women.
mean commitment score.

Method Extradyadic Sex

Participants This was assessed by the item‘‘Have you had sexual encounters
outside your current relationship without your partner’s knowl-
Participants were 566 Portuguese heterosexuals (70 % women; edge?’’ (Yes/No). The question was derived from previous
Mage = 21.24, SD = 4.45) who voluntarily took part in this research in extradyadic sexual involvement (Rodrigues et al.,
study. Participants resided mostly in Portuguese metropolitan 2016; Shaw et al., 2013). In case individuals responded‘‘yes,’’

123
Arch Sex Behav

Table 1 Summary of fit indexes for the SOI-R (Study 1)

Models df v2 v2/df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA [CI]

Model (total sample) 24 82.07 3.42 .97 .96 .04 .07 [.05; .09]
Model (women) 24 53.81 2.24 .97 .96 .04 .06 [.04; .08]
Model (men) 24 29.27 1.22 .99 .99 .04 .04 [.00; .07]
CFI Comparative fit index, TLI Tucker–Lewis fit index, SRMR standardized root-mean-square residual, RMSEA root-mean-square error of
approximation, CI 95 % confidence interval

they were additionally asked: ‘‘Are casual sexual encounters three correlated components (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008) for the
outside your current relationship allowed?’’ (Yes/No). This total sample and for women and men separately. Using Mplus
allowed us to control for consensual non-monogamy that can with maximum likelihood estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 2015),
influence the perception of which behaviors constitute infidelity we obtained relative and absolute goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-
(Cohen, 2015; Mogilski, Memering, Welling, & Shackelford, squared statistic (v2), relative chi-square (v2/df), comparative fit
2015). index (CFI),Tucker–Lewis index(TLI), standardizedroot-mean-
squared residual (SMSR), and the root-mean-square error of
Procedure approximation (RMSEA). Based on the standards established in
the literature for fit indexes (Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck,
The study was in agreement with the Ethics Guidelines issued 1989;Byrne,2012;Jöreskog&Sörbom,1984),allmodelsreported
by the Scientific Commission of ISCTE-IUL. A Web survey appropriate fits (see Table 1).
was developed in QualtricsÒ, and the link to the survey was As expected, behavior correlated with attitudes(total sample:
published in social networking sites, sent to mailing lists, and / = .57, p\.001; women: / = .54, p\.001; men: / = .51,
made available at a webpage purposely developed for this p\.001) and with desire (total sample: / = .43, p\.001; women:
study. When accessing the questionnaire, participants were / = .38, p\.001; men: / = .37, p\.001). Attitudes correlated
informed that they would be taking part in a research project with desire (total sample: / = .68, p\.001; women: / = .68,
about personal relationships and that they could abandon the p\.001; men: / = .48, p\.001). Furthermore, high reliability
study at any point simply by closing the Web browser (see levels were found for the global scores (a = .84), behavior
Barchard & Williams, 2008). After providing informed (a = .81), attitudes (a = .82), and desire (a = .85) components
consent by clicking on the‘‘I agree’’option, participants were (see Table 2).
presented with standard demographic questions (e.g., age,
gender, relationship status and sexual orientation), followed
by the SOI-R measure. Those in a romantic relationship were Differences in Sociosexuality
additionally presented with the Commitment scale and with
the extradyadic sex measure. At the end, all participants were A 2 (Gender: women vs. men) 9 2 (Relationship status: single
thanked, debriefed, and provided with an e-mail address to vs. romantically involved) ANOVA on global SOI-R scores
contact the research team should they want to obtain further yielded significant main effects for both gender, F(1, 525) =
information or clarify any question regarding the research. 64.81, MSE = 69.16, p\.001, g2p = .11, and relationship sta-
There was no time limit for completing the questionnaire tus, F(1, 525) = 40.28, p\.001, MSE = 42.99, g2p = .07. Men
(MCompletion time = 10 min). Following recommendations for reported a more unrestricted global sociosexuality (M = 3.32,
best practices in online data collection (Gosling, Vazire, Sri- SD = 1.10) than women (M = 2.45, SD = 1.06), and single par-
vastava, & John, 2004), the internet protocol (IP) addresses ticipants reported a more unrestricted global sociosexuality
were checked to ensure that no IP corresponded to more than (M = 3.09, SD = 1.17) than romantically involved participants
one questionnaire. (M = 2.40, SD = 1.02) (see Table 2). The interaction between
these factors was nonsignificant, F\1.
To examine whether the same pattern emerged for each
Results SOI-R component separately, we conducted a 2 (Gender) 9 2
(Relationship status) MANOVA with each SOI-R compo-
SOI-R: Confirmatory Factor Models, Correlations, nents. Results showed a significant effect of both gender,
and Reliability Wilks’ lambda = .87, F(3, 523) = 26.60, p\.001, g2p = .13,
and relationship status, Wilks’ lambda = .87, F(3, 525) = 26.38,
Since this measure was not validated in Portugal, we conducted p\.001, g2p = .13. Again, the interaction between the factors
confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) to test its structure comprising was nonsignificant, F\1.

123
 Arch Sex Behav

Table 2 Reliability of SOI-R components and mean scores across gender and relationship status (Study 1)
a Single M (SD) In a relationship M (SD) Total
M (SD)

Globala Women .83 2.79 (1.12) 2.21 (0.95) 2.45 (1.06)

Men .81 3.63 (1.07) 2.96 (1.03) 3.32 (1.10)
Total .84 3.09 (1.17) 2.40 (1.02) 2.71 (1.14)
Behaviorb Women .80 1.87 (1.08) 1.85 (0.87) 1.86 (0.96)
Men .82 2.20 (1.35) 1.98 (1.01) 2.10 (1.21)
Total .81 1.99 (1.19) 1.88 (0.91) 1.93 (1.04)
b
Attitudes Women .80 3.30 (1.67) 2.85 (1.55) 3.04 (1.61)
Men .81 4.60 (1.63) 3.89 (1.59) 4.27 (1.65)
Total .82 3.75 (1.76) 3.11 (1.62) 3.40 (1.72)
Desireb Women .83 3.20 (1.52) 1.93 (1.21) 2.47 (1.49)
Men .85 4.11 (1.42) 3.00 (1.62) 3.60 (1.61)
Total .85 3.52 (1.55) 2.20 (1.40) 2.80 (1.61)
a b
Absolute score range 9–63, 3–21

Men reported more unrestricted behavior (men: M = 2.10, Commitment and Sociosexuality
SD = 1.21; women: M = 1.86, SD = 0.96), F(1, 525) = 5.20,
MSE = 5.62, p = .023, g2p = .01, more unrestricted attitudes To examine the association between commitment and socio-
(men: M = 4.27, SD = 1.65; women: M = 3.04, SD = 1.61), sexuality among romantically involved individuals in greater
F(1, 525) = 58.20, MSE = 149.53, p\.001, g2p = .10, and more detail, we conducted a series of bootstrapped linear regressions
unrestricted desire (men: M = 3.60, SD = 1.61; women: M = with 5000 samples using PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes,
2.47, SD = 1.49), F(1, 525) = 54.55, MSE = 107.08, p\.001, 2013). Commitment, gender (coded 0 = women, 1 = men), and
g2p = .09. their respective interaction were the predictors. Global SOI-R
Single participants reported more unrestricted attitudes and scores on each SOI-R component served as depen-
(single: M = 3.75, SD = 1.76; romantically involved: M = 3.11, dent variables. Relationship length was the control variable in
SD = 1.62), F(1, 525) = 14.14, MSE = 36.33, p\.001, g2p = all analyses. All variables were centered prior to the analyses.
.03, and more unrestricted desire (single: M = 3.52, SD = 1.55; Results are shown in Table 3. There was a main effect of com-
romantically involved: M = 2.20, SD = 1.40), F(1, 525) = 78.40, mitment onglobal sociosexuality (p\.001), attitudes(p = .002),
MSE = 153.91, p\.001, g2p = .13. No significant differences and desire (p\.001). There was also a main effect of gender on
in behavior emerged between single participants (M = 1.99, global sociosexuality (p\.001), attitudes (p\.001), and desire
SD = 1.19) and those romantically involved (M = 1.88, SD = (p\.001). No other main effects attained significance. Vari-
0.91), F(1, 525) = 1.41, MSE = 1.52, p = .236.1 ance inflation factor (VIF) values were within the acceptable
range in all linear regression analyses [1.036; 1.240], thus not
indicating multicollinearity issues.
Simple slope analyses indicated that the association between
commitment and sociosexuality was negative and significant
1
Even though this component presents high reliability, increased reliabil- for women and men: global (both p\.001), attitudes (both
ity might still be achieved by removing SOI-R Item 1 ‘‘With how many p\.050), and desire (both p\.001). Slopes for behavior were
different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?’’from this
component (a = .84; women a = .83; men a = .85). By computing a new
nonsignificant. Hence, more committed individuals (?1 SD)
mean score for behavior without this item, a 2 (Gender) x 2 (Relationship reported a more restricted global sociosexuality as well as more
status) ANOVA replicated the significant effect of gender, F(1, 525) = restricted attitudes and desire than less committed individuals
4.62, MSE = 6.88, p = .032, g2p = .01, but more importantly demonstrates (-1 SD).
the expected effect of relationship statusalbeit marginal, F(1, 525) = 3.28,
MSE = 4.89, p = .071, g2p = .01. Single participants reported more unre-
stricted behavior (M = 1.95, SD = 1.31) than those romantically involved
(M = 1.77, SD = 1.15). This may be due to the fact that Item 1 asked Commitment, Sociosexuality, and Sexual Infidelity
participants to disclose their sexual activity within the last 12 months,
whereas Items 2 and 3 asked for behavioral tendencies throughout their To further test our hypothesis that unrestricted individuals
lives. This consideration might prove of importance to future research as
would be less likely to have extradyadic sex when more
the currently conveyed social norms regarding unrestricted sexual behav-
ior may prevent individuals from disclosing their current behaviors (e.g., committed to their current partner, we conducted a series of
Fisher, 2009) and can possibly hinder the results obtained with this measure. bootstrapped logistic regression models(samples = 5000) again

123
Arch Sex Behav

using PROCESS. We adopted this strategy for three reasons. not emerge as a significant predictor in either regression (all
First, the dependent variable was dichotomous, asking individ- p[.451).
uals to disclose whether they had had non-mutually consented Although the expected interaction between sociosexuality
extradyadic sex (coded 0 = no, 1 = yes). Second, and possibly and commitment was not found (all p[.112), a detailed analysis
due to reluctance over disclosing such sensitive information, the of the simple slopes showed that increases in commitment were
distribution of this variable proved highly biased and conse- associated with significantly less likelihood of extradyadic sex in
quentlynonlinear.Third,separating dependent variablesallowed more sociosexually unrestricted individuals (?1 SD): global:
us to avoid multicollinearity. In all regressions, commitment, b = -0.69, SE = .27, z(205) = -2.57, p = .010, 95 % CI [-1.21,
sociosexuality, and their respective interactions were the pre- -0.16], attitudes, b = -0.85, SE = .28, z(205) = -3.05, p = .002,
dictors. Extradyadic sex was the dependent variable. As no sig- 95 % CI [-1.39, -0.30], and desire, b = -0.60, SE = .26,
nificant gender differences were found in the commitment— z(205) = -2.27, p = .023, 95 % CI [-1.11, -0.08]. The slope
infidelity link, gender was added as a control variable along with for behavior was nonsignificant (p = .590).
relationship length.
Results showed that sexual infidelity was negatively and
significantly predicted by commitment in our regressions (all Discussion
Nagelkerke R2[.21): global: b = -0.54, SE = .23, z(205) =
-2.29,p = .022, 95 % CI [-0.99, -0.08], behavior: b = -0.54, Taken together, our results replicate the extensive literature
SE = .21, z(205) = -2.58, p = .010, 95 % CI [-0.96, -0.13], reporting that men tend to be more sociosexually unrestricted
attitudes: b = -0.53, SE = .23, z(205) = -2.25, p = .024, 95 % than women (supporting H1) (Buss, 1998; Buss & Schmitt, 1993)
CI [-0.99, -0.07], and desire: b = -0.50, SE = .24, z(205) = and that single individuals are more sociosexually unrestricted
-2.10, p = .036, 95 % CI [-0.97, -0.03]. Sociosexuality did than those in relationships (supporting H2) (Gangestad &

Table 3 Regression analyses on sociosexuality predicted by commitment and gender (Study 1)

Dependent Predictor b SE t p 95 % CI

Global sociosexuality Commitment -0.31*** .05 -5.87 \.001 [- 0.41, -0.21]

Gender 0.71*** .14 5.03 \.001 [0.43, 0.99]
Commitment 9 Gender -0.02 .11 -0.18 .856 [- 0.24, 0.20]
Simple slope for women -0.30*** .06 -4.82 \.001 [- 0.43, -0.18]
Simple slope for men -0.32*** .09 -3.55 \.001 [- 0.51, -0.14]
Sociosexual behavior Commitment -0.07 .05 -1.36 .175 [- 0.17, 0.03]
Gender 0.06 .14 0.40 .689 [- 0.22, 0.33]
Commitment 9 Gender 0.03 .11 0.32 .753 [- 0.18, 0.25]
Simple slope for women -0.08 .06 -1.27 .205 [- 0.20, 0.04]
Simple slope for men -0.05 .09 -0.50 .621 [- 0.22, 0.13]
Sociosexual attitudes Commitment -0.31** .10 -3.20 .002 [- 0.49, -0.12]
Gender 1.05*** .26 4.08 \.001 [0.54, 1.55]
Commitment 9 Gender -0.03 .20 -0.13 .894 [- 0.42, 0.37]
Simple slope for women -0.30** .11 -2.61 .010 [- 0.52, -0.07]
Simple slope for men -0.33* .17 -1.97 .050 [- 0.65, -0.01]
Sociosexual desire Commitment -0.55*** .07 -8.21 \.001 [- 0.68, -0.42]
Gender 1.04*** .18 5.73 \.001 [0.68, 1.39]
Commitment 9 Gender -0.07 .14 -0.49 .628 [- 0.35, 0.21]
Simple slope for women -0.53*** .08 -6.64 \.001 [- 0.69, -0.38]
Simple slope for men -0.60*** .12 -5.18 \.001 [- 0.83, -0.37]
Controlling for relationship length. Gender [0 = women, 1 = men]. Variables were standardized prior to analysis
b unstandardized coefficient, SE standard error. Degrees of freedom for t statistics = 203, CI confidence interval
* p B .05, ** p B .01, *** p B .001

123
 Arch Sex Behav

Simpson, 2000). Indeed, individuals in relationships reported whether greater commitment also activates derogation among
being more restricted, especially in their attitudes and desire sociosexually unrestricted individuals.
toward potential alternative others. This converges with con-
siderations over how individuals with more unrestricted socio- Study 2
sexuality do not shun, but are indeed able to maintain, long-term
committed romantic relationships (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991; In this study, we aimed at replicating the results from Study 1.
Simpson et al., 2004). However, we examined a context of initial physical and sexual
For those romantically involved, commitment was found to attraction to an unknown attractive target. We hypothesized
be associated with sociosexuality (supporting H3), such that that:
more (vs. less) committed individuals reported more restricted
H1 Single individuals would report greater attraction to the
global sociosexuality. These individuals were also more
attractive target, whereas romantically involved individuals
restricted in their attitudes and in their desire. The fact that no
would report less attraction and evidence derogation as a pro-
significant association emerged for behavior may be explained,
relationship behavior (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Meston &
at least partially, by the fact that this component reflects behav-
Frohlich, 2003; Simpson et al., 1990);
ioraltendencies throughoutlife (e.g.,‘‘With how many different
partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and only one H2a Derogation should be especially evident for more com-
occasion?’’) and does not necessarily represent current behav- mitted individuals (Lydon et al., 1999), such that more committed
ior. Indeed, only SOI-R Item 1 asked individuals to report their individuals would report less attraction to the attractive target
sexual behavior within the past 12 months and our participants compared to their less committed counterparts;
were in a relationship for a mean length of approximately
H2b This effect of commitment should occur over and above
24 months. Furthermore, neither global nor each of the SOI-R
sociosexuality levels (Mattingly et al., 2011).
components predicted sexual infidelity in our sample. This
suggests that more unrestricted sociosexuality is notnecessarily Replicating the results from Study 1, we further hypoth-
associated with greater likelihood of extradyadic sex. Com- esized that:
mitment, however, predicted infidelity to a greater extent (sup-
H3 Commitment should predict occurrences of extradyadic
porting H4), over and above sociosexuality and gender (see also
sex in the current relationship (Martins et al., 2016; Rodrigues
Drigotas et al., 1999b; Mattingly et al., 2011; Rodrigues et al.,
et al., 2016; Shaw et al., 2013), such that more committed indi-
2016; Shaw et al., 2013; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). More
viduals should indicate less sexual infidelity;
importantly, our results further showed that unrestricted indi-
viduals were less likely to be sexually unfaithful to their rela- H4 This effect should occur among unrestricted individu-
tionships when more committed to their relationships (partially als, such that more committed individuals should indicate less
supporting H5). sexual infidelity even when sociosexually unrestricted.
These last pieces of evidence hold extreme importance and
Again, all these effects should hold true for both men and
back the literature showing that commitment activates different
women (Simpson et al., 2004).
pro-relationship behaviors oriented at maintaining the stability
of the relationship (e.g., derogating feelings of attraction) in the
face of potential threats (e.g., an attractive other) (Rusbult & Method
Buunk, 1993). Such behaviors seem to occur especially when
levels of commitment and those of perceived threat are cali- Participants
brated (high commitment/high attractiveness) (Lydon, Meana,
Sepinwall, Richards, & Mayman, 1999). As sociosexuality refers Participantswere168Portugueseheterosexuals(65.5 % women;
to the predisposition toward casual sex, if individuals experience Mage = 23.28, SD = 5.60) who voluntarily took part in this study.
sexualattractiontoanattractiveotherwhileinahighlycommitted Participants resided mostly in Portuguese metropolitan areas
relationship, their commitment may activate a pro-relationship (57.7 %) and completed high school (53.2 %), an undergraduate
strategy oriented at protecting one’s self from having unrestricted degree (40.4 %) or a Master/Ph.D. (6.4 %). Half of the sample
behaviors or experiencing sexual desire. Greater commitment was single and not currently dating another person (43.6 %),
may also lead unrestricted individuals to restrict their favorable whereas the other half was involved in a consensual monog-
attitudes toward casual sex, again as a protection strategy guard- amous romantic relationship for mean length of 33.79 months
ing their relationship. Following this, in Study 2, we examined (SD = 44.18).

123
Arch Sex Behav

Measures research. There was no time limit for completing the question-
naire (MCompletion time = 10 min), and there were no repeated IP
Physical and Sexual Attraction addresses.

Participants were shown a picture of an attractive opposite-sex

target and asked to report their attraction. Drawing from Results
research on interpersonal and sexual attraction (e.g., Foster
et al., 1998; Meston & Frohlich, 2003), this measure comprised Gender and Derogation
three items (‘‘How much would you like to ask this person out
on a date?’’, ‘‘How much would you like to kiss this person?’’, A 2 (Gender: women vs. men) 9 2 (Relationship status: single
and ‘‘How much desire [physical, emotional, mental] do you vs. romantically involved) ANOVA yielded only a main effect
feel for this person?’’). Participants answered on a 7-point scale of relationship status, F(1, 157) = 5.91, MSE = 7.06, p = .016,
(1 = Not at all; 7 = A lot). Averaging all item scores resulted in g2p = .04. Romantically involved participants reported signifi-
a mean physical/sexual attraction score. In the current sample, cantly less physical and sexual attraction (M = 1.47, SD = 0.89)
this measure had a high level of reliability (a = .96) and a one- than their single counterparts (M = 2.00, SD = 1.31). No other
factor model accounting for 92.12 % of the variance. results attained statistical significance.2

Sociosexuality Commitment and Sociosexuality

This measure was presented in Study 1. The reliability coeffi- To examine whether romantically involved individuals dero-
cients for the current sample were similar to those obtained in gated the attractive alternative regardless of sociosexuality levels,
Study 1 (global: 9 items, a = .84; behavior: 3 items, a = .84; atti- we conducted a series of bootstrapped linear regressions (sam-
tudes: 3 items, a = .84; and desire: 3 items, a = .87). ples = 5000) using PROCESS. Commitment, each of the SOI-R
components, and their respective interaction terms were the
Commitment predictors. Physical/sexual attraction was the dependent variable.
Relationship length was the control variable in all analyses. All
This measure was also presented in Study 1. The reliability variableswerecentered priorto theanalyses. Resultsareshownin
coefficient of this scale for the current sample was similar to Table 4. As can be seen, there was a main effect of commitment
that obtained in the previous study (a = .91). on attraction, over and above sociosexuality (all p\.010). Socio-
sexuality main effects were nonsignificant in all analyses (all
Extradyadic Sex p[.338). VIF values of all linear regression analyses were within
the acceptable range [1.11; 1.99].
This was assessed using the items presented in Study 1. Simple slope analyses further revealed a significant asso-
ciation between commitment and physical/sexual attraction
Procedure regardless of global sociosexuality (both p[.006), behavior
(both p[.031), attitudes (both p[.001), and desire (both
This study was again in agreement with the Ethics Guidelines p[.030).
issued by the Scientific Commission of ISCTE-IUL. Procedure
was similar to Study 1. After providing informed consent to Commitment, Sociosexuality, and Sexual Infidelity
participate in a research project about personal relationships,
participants were presented with the Web survey that started Replicating the procedures presented in Study 1, a series of
with standard demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, rela- additional bootstrapped logistic regressions (samples = 5000)
tionship status, and sexual orientation). Participants were then using PROCESS examined whether unrestricted individuals
presented with a photograph of an opposite-sex attractive target were less likely to have extradyadic sex when more committed
(pretested; Rodrigues & Lopes, 2013a). After 6 s, the photograph to their current partner. Results again show that sexual infidelity
disappeared fromthescreenand participantswere asked toreport was negative and significantly predicted by commitment (all
their physical and sexual attraction toward the target. Following Nagelkerke R2[.24): global b = -0.91, SE = .38, z(94) =
this, all participants completed the SOI-R measure. Romanti- -2.42, p = .016, 95 % CI [-1.64, -0.17], behavior b = -0.82,
cally involved participants were additionally presented with the
Commitment scale and the extradyadic sex measure. At the end, 2
As we found no significant gender differences in the association
all participants were thanked, debriefed, and provided with an
between commitment and sociosexuality (Study 1) or in the attraction to
e-mail address to contact the research team should they want to the attractive target (Study 2), gender was dropped from subsequent
obtain further information or clarify any question regarding the analyses.

123
 Arch Sex Behav

SE = .32, z(94) = -2.58, p = .010, 95 % CI [-1.45, -0.20], (supporting H1). Importantly, derogation occurred over and
attitudes b = -0.71, SE = .36, z(94) = -1.95, p = .050, 95 % above sociosexuality (supporting H2a and H2b). In other
CI [-1.42, -0.01], and desire b = -1.22, SE = .42, z(94) = words, more committed individuals derogated the attractive
-2.90, p = .004, 95 % CI [-2.04, -0.40]. Sociosexuality did target to a similar extent, regardless of having restricted or
not emerge as a significant predictor in neither regression (all unrestricted sociosexuality, arguably as a means to protect
p[.851). the stability of the relationship. These results complement
Again, the expected interaction between sociosexuality and and extend those showing the predictive value of commit-
commitment was not found (all p[.173). However, simple ment in sexual infidelity (supporting H3), in the sense that
slopes analyses showed that increases in commitment were just as commitment emerged as the only variable negatively
associated with significantly less likelihood of extradyadic sex associated with physical/sexual attraction to an unknown
in more sociosexually unrestricted individuals (?1 SD): global attractive target, it emerged also as the sole predictor of sexual
b = -0.78, SE = .35, z(94) = -2.23, p = .026, 95 % CI [-1.47, infidelity in both studies. Equally important, we replicated the
-0.09], attitudes b = -0.89, SE = .37, z(94) = -2.41, p = .016, finding that unrestricted individuals were less likely to indicate
95 % CI[-1.61,-0.17],anddesireb = -0.80, SE = .37,z(94) = sexual infidelity when more committed to their partners (par-
-2.16, p = .031, 95 % CI [-1.52, -0.07]. The slope for behavior tially supporting H4).
was nonsignificant (p = .115).

General Discussion
Discussion
Sociosexuality is a personal predisposition that potentially
Overall, our results showed that single participants reported influences the initiation and early development of romantic
greater attractiontothe attractivetarget. Romantically involved relationships (e.g., unrestricted individuals may have greater
individuals, however, reported less attraction, evidencing the difficulties with a committed relationship). In this article, we
activation of derogation as a pro-relationship strategy against argued that increases in commitment should lead individuals
a perceived external threat posed by the attractive target to accommodate this predisposition to their relationship goals

Table 4 Regression analyses on attraction predicted by commitment and sociosexuality (Study 2)

Predictor b SE t p 95 % CI

Commitment -0.43*** .12 -3.60 \.001 [- 0.67, -0.19]

Global sociosexuality 0.04 .10 0.37 .714 [- 0.16, 0.24]
Commitment 9 Global sociosexuality 0.10 .09 1.18 .242 [- 0.24, 0.20]
Simple slope for restricted (-1 SD) -0.54** .19 -2.83 .006 [- 0.92, -0.16]
Simple slope for unrestricted (?1 SD) -0.32*** .09 -3.48 \.001 [- 0.51, -0.14]
Commitment -0.40*** .08 -4.80 \.001 [- 0.57, -0.23]
Sociosexual behavior 0.09 .09 0.95 .347 [- 0.09, 0.27]
Commitment 9 Sociosexual behavior -0.18 .09 -1.88 .065 [- 0.37, 0.01]
Simple slope for restricted (-1 SD) -0.23* .11 -2.20 .031 [- 0.44, -0.02]
Simple slope for unrestricted (?1 SD) -0.57*** .14 -4.10 \.001 [- 0.85, -0.30]
Commitment -0.51*** .10 -4.99 \.001 [- 0.71, -0.31]
Sociosexual attitudes -1.03 .05 -0.55 .586 [- 0.13, 0.07]
Commitment 9 Sociosexual attitudes 0.12* .05 2.40 .019 [0.02, 0.23]
Simple slope for restricted (-1 SD) -0.72*** .17 -4.24 \.001 [- 1.06, -0.38]
Simple slope for unrestricted (?1 SD) -0.29*** .09 -3.32 .001 [- 0.47, -0.12]
Commitment -0.36** .14 -2.64 .010 [- 0.63, -0.09]
Sociosexual desire 0.07 .08 0.97 .338 [- 0.08, 0.22]
Commitment 9 Sociosexual desire 0.04 .06 0.78 .438 [- 0.07, 0.15]
Simple slope for restricted (-1 SD) -0.41* .19 -2.21 .030 [- 0.78, -0.04]
Simple slope for unrestricted (?1 SD) -0.29** .11 -2.75 .007 [- 0.51, -0.08]
Controlling for relationship length. Variables were standardized prior to analysis
b unstandardized coefficient, SE standard error. Degrees of freedom for t statistics = 72, CI confidence interval
* p B .05, ** p B .01, *** p B .001

123
Arch Sex Behav

(e.g., a committed relationship). This would be reflected in consequently sexual infidelity (Studies 1 and 2). Equally
more restricted sociosexuality levels. important, the effects of commitment on sexual infidelity were
To examine this argument, the SOI-R measure was first observed even among sociosexually unrestricted individuals
validated in a sample of Portuguese individuals (Study 1). Not (Studies 1 and 2).
only was the original three-factor structure replicated (Penke & These results converge with past empirical findings sug-
Asendorpf, 2008), but the SOI-R showed good internal con- gesting that individuals restrict their sociosexuality when in
sistency for the global, behaviors, attitudes, and desire scores. a romantic relationship (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). These
Moreover, both the factorial structure and the internal consis- results also converge with past empirical findings suggesting
tency indexes were replicated for women and men suggesting commitment as one of the most reliable predictors of sexual
the appropriateness of this instrument in assessing sociosexu- infidelity (Martins et al., 2016; Rodrigues et al., 2016; Shaw
ality in both genders. et al., 2013). By deciding not to engage in sexual infidelity based
Results from Study 1 showed that men have more unrestricted on their high commitment, restricted and unrestricted individ-
sociosexuality than women. This was also the case for all SOI-R uals appear to transform their personal motivations into rela-
components, that is, men indicated more unrestricted behaviors, tional motivations (Drigotas et al., 1999b) and establish a norm
attitudes, and desires than women. Results also showed that that serves as the basis for similar future situations (Buunk &
single individuals were more unrestricted than romantically Bakker, 1995; Drigotas et al., 1999a). Our studies do not allow
involved individuals. In detailing each SOI-R component sepa- us to fully examine the causal directions of these findings. For
rately, this was also the case for attitudes and desires. The lack of instance, the finding that more committed individuals are less
differences for sociosexual behavior could be associated with sociosexually unrestricted and less likely to engage in extra-
social desirability and the negative double standard in sexual dyadic sex might also be a result of having a sample of mostly
behavior, such that casual sex tends to be more socially accepted sociosexually restricted individuals to begin with. Future research
among men than women (Allison & Risman, 2013; Crawford & should seek to employ a longitudinal methodology to examine if
Popp, 2003; Fisher, 2009; Sprecher et al., 2013). This may be individuals restrict their sociosexuality because they are more
associated with societal norms and socialization asymmetries committed to their relationship, if they maintain their unrestricted
regarding gender roles (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Schmitt, 2005). sociosexuality by being less committed to their relationship.
Another plausible explanation for this finding derives from cross- Researchers could also expand to include different types of infi-
cultural findings showing that Portugal has relatively restricted delity (e.g., emotional infidelity), different extradyadic behaviors
sociosexuality levels when comparedtoothercountries (Schmitt, (e.g., kissing, online sexual activities), and reasonsfor engaging in
2005). Indeed, Portugal is a patriarchal society governed by tra- extradyadic sex (e.g., sexual dissatisfaction with the partner). A
ditional and religious norms and single women may also conform longitudinal study would also allow researchers to examine the
to these norms (Nogueira, Saavedra, & Costa, 2008), underre- predictive power of commitment and sociosexuality, taking into
porting past sexual behaviors. Further research should seek to account types of infidelity, extradyadic behaviors, and motiva-
investigate this in greater detail, especially because Study 1 was tions underlying such behaviors.
an anonymous Web survey, which has been shown to reduce the Ourresults alsoshowed thatindividuals in relationshipsacti-
likelihood of biased reports of sexual behavior in both genders vate strategies and restrict their sociosexuality in order to protect
(see Beaussart & Kaufman, 2013; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004). the stability of their romantic relationship (Study 2). For both
Results from Study 1 also showed that when in a romantic genders, commitment seems to act as a barrier in itself to feeling
relationship,bothgendersreportedmorerestrictedsociosexuality physically and sexually attracted to another person, which con-
than single individuals. This converges with pluralistic views of sequently helps to prevent infidelity behaviors. As long as indi-
human mating (e.g., Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), positing that viduals are highly committed, they maintain their focus on their
both women and men shift between short- and long-term mating current relationship regardless of their sociosexuality and are
strategies depending on their specific context and motivations. unaffected (or at least less affected) by their predisposition to
When motivated to maintain long-term committed romantic casual sex.
relationship, individuals are more likely to activate a common It is possible that restricted and unrestricted individuals acti-
relational self (Aron, Mashek, & Aron, 2004) and commitment vate derogation for different reasons. As restricted individuals
becomes more salient (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, are not, by themselves, predisposed or motivated to casual sex,
1998), which in turn promotes the activation of pro-relationship derogation may act as an intrinsic protection against a perceived
behaviors. In line with this, our results showed that highly com- external threat (e.g., an attractive target) that may harm the
mitted individuals (i.e., those oriented toward the long-term stability of the relationship. As unrestricted individuals have
maintenance of their relationship) were more sociosexually such predisposition or motivation, derogation may act as an
restricted (Study 1), activate derogation by feeling less physically intrinsic protection against a perceived internal threat (e.g., feel-
and sexually attracted to an unknown attractive target (Study 2), ings of sexual attraction). Hence, derogating an attractive target
and were less likely to engage in extradyadic sex and would protect unrestricted individuals against themselves and

123
 Arch Sex Behav

their predisposition for casual sex, thus shifting their mating Not only are these findings promising and open up new
strategy according to the context. Such a type of accommoda- venues for researchers to continue their research on the inter-
tion is in line with the strategic pluralism model (Gangestad & play between sociosexuality and commitment, they are also
Simpson, 2000). More research is needed to disentangle the role informative for professionals to better understand human sex-
of commitment in sexuality (see also Simpson et al., 2004). uality within romantic relationships and to help devise specific
Future research might incorporate measurements of jealousy intervention programs (e.g., relationship guidance therapy) to
(e.g., Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) or reactions to hypothetical infi- boost sexual and psychological health.
delity by their partners (e.g., Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmel-
roth, 1992). If derogation acts as a protection against an external Acknowledgments This research was funded by the grant SFRH/BPD/
73528/2010, awarded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia to the
threat among restricted individuals, then restricted individuals first author. The authors would like to thank Aleksandra Huić and the
should feel greater jealousy toward their partners in a sexual anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
infidelity context. If derogation acts as a protection against an
internal threat among unrestricted individuals, then unrestricted
individuals should be more willing to forgive their partner’s
infidelity and possibly feel less jealousy. Future studies should References
analyze these hypotheses.
On a broader note, future research should also analyze data Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998).
from both partners in the couple (e.g., using the actor–partner Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representa-
tion of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
interdependence model) (Cook & Kenny, 2005). This would ogy, 74, 939–954. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939.
allow to examine how complementary or opposite sociosexu- Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for‘‘hooking up’’:
ality influences commitment and extradyadic sex. How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science
This research was conducted online and guaranteed anon- Research, 42, 1191–1206. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.
Aron, A. P., Mashek, D. J., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including
ymity for those who chose to participate, which helps in improv- other in the self. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of
ing the accuracy of responses. Furthermore, our sample was closeness and intimacy (pp. 27–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
diverse in terms of demographic features, including age, geo- Associates.
graphic location, and relationship length. Still, this methodol- Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cog-
nitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Person-
ogy may have biased the characteristics of our sample, given ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203. doi:10.1177/
that individuals more likely to participate in this type of studies 0146167201279011.
tend to have higher levels of education, reside in urban centers, Asendorpf, J. B., & Penke, L. (2005). A mature evolutionary psychology
and have higher socioeconomic status. These limitations notwith- demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 28, 275–276. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05220058.
standing, this article presents empirical evidence that advances our Barchard, K. A., & Williams, J. (2008). Practical advice for conducting
knowledge in five different ways. First, our findings demonstrate ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psy-
that, regardless of sociosexuality, commitment activates deroga- chologists. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1111–1128. doi:10.3758/
tion. Second, our data corroborate the assertion by Simpson and BRM.40.4.1111.
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in hetero-
Gangestad (1991) and Simpson et al. (2004) that sociosexually sexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and
unrestricted individuals have stable romantic relationships and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
activate protective mechanisms against perceived external 22, 339–360. doi:10.1177/0265407505052440.
threats. Third, our findings showed that derogation was greater Beaussart, M. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Gender differences and the
effects of perceived internet privacy on self-reports of sexual behav-
when individuals were highly committed, regardless of having ior and sociosexuality. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2524–
restricted or unrestricted sociosexuality. Not only was socio- 2529. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.014.
sexuality not associated with extradyadic sex, it was not asso- Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
ciated with physical and sexual attraction to an unknown attrac- Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.
238.
tive target. Fourth, our data suggest that sociosexuality is likely to Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of
undergo modifications depending on situational variables (e.g., human development. In R. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook
being in a committed relationship). This is not to say that socio- of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ:
sexuality (e.g., attitudes toward casual sex) changes drastically Wiley.
Browne,M.W.,& Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices
with the development of a relationship. Instead, it suggests that for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–
individuals tone down their sociosexuality to accommodate a 455. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4.
highly committed and stable relationship (see Penke & Asen- Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and
dorpf, 2008). Lastly, and in line with this, our findings showed current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31. doi:10.1080/
00224499809551914.
commitment as one of the most important relational variables in Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection.
predicting sexual infidelity in mutually consented monogamous Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. doi:10.
relationships. 1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.

123
Arch Sex Behav

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex dif- close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
ferences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psycho- 57, 967–980. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967.
logical Science, 3, 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x. Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus
Buss,D.M., & Schmitt,D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42,
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. 1407–1414. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204. Jones, M. (1998). Sociosexuality and motivations for romantic involve-
Buunk, B. P., & Bakker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of descrip- ment. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 173–182. doi:10.1006/
tive and injunctive norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 313–318. jrpe.1997.2212.
doi:10.1080/00224499509551804. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL 6: User’s guide. Mooresville,
Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Gender differences in rival character- IN: Scientific Software International.
isticsthatevokejealousyinresponsetoemotionalversussexualinfidelity. Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determi-
Personal Relationships, 11, 395–408. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004. nants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relation-
00089.x. ships, 10, 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010).
concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-
Academic. analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390. doi:10.
Cohen, M. T. (2015). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, 1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x.
alternative relationships: How ‘‘open’’ are we? Sexuality and Culture, Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S.
20, 295–315. doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9324-z. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology
model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. Bulletin, 25, 152–161. doi:10.1177/0146167299025002002.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or
doi:10.1080/01650250444000405. fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review Marks,M.J.,&Fraley,R.C.(2006).Confirmationbiasandthesexualdouble
and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–26. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-8866-9.
Sex Research, 40, 13–26. doi:10.1080/00224490309552163. Martins, A., Pereira, M., Andrade, R., Dattilio, F. M., Narciso, I., &
Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Verette, J. (1999a). Level of commitment, Canavarro, M. C. (2016). Infidelity in dating relationships: Gender-
mutuality of commitment, and couple well-being. Personal Relation- specific correlates of face-to-face and online extradyadic involve-
ships, 6, 389–409. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00199.x. ment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 193–205. doi:10.1007/
Drigotas,S.M.,Safstrom,C.A.,&Gentilia,T.(1999b).Aninvestmentmodel s10508-015-0576-3.
prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Mattingly, B. A.,Clark, E. M., Weidler, D.J.,Bullock, M., Hackathorn,J.,&
chology, 77, 509–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.509. Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human infidelity: A mediation analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 151,
behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psy- 222–226. doi:10.1080/00224540903536162.
chologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408. Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2003). Love at first fright: Partner salience
Fisher, T. D. (2009). The impact of socially conveyed norms on the moderates roller-coaster-induced excitation transfer. Archives of Sexual
reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Behavior, 32, 537–544.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 567–572. doi:10. Miller,R.S.(1997).Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and
1016/j.jesp.2009.02.007. attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in 73, 758–766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758.
intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015).
ogy, 76, 72–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72. Monogamyversusconsensualnon-monogamy:Alternativeapproaches
Foster, C. A., Witcher, B. S., Campbell, W. K., & Green, J. D. (1998). Arousal to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy.Archives of Sexual
and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. Jour- Behavior,. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2.
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 86–101. doi:10.1037/ Mulhall, J., King, R., Glina, S., & Hvidsten, K. (2008). Importance of and
0022-3514.74.1.86. satisfaction with sex among men and women worldwide: Results of
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: the global better sex survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 788–
Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 795. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00765.x.
573–587. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six precon- Nogueira, C., Saavedra, L., & Costa, C. (2008). Gender (in)visibility in
ceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, juvenile sexuality: Proposals for a new conception about sexual
93–104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93. education and prevention against risky sexual behaviors. Pro-
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following Posições, 19, 59–79. doi:10.1590/S0103-73072008000200006.
infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and
Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 508–522. doi:10.1521/jscp. lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social
2006.25.5.508. Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1255–1266. doi:10.1177/0146167204264
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional 754.
process analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Penke,L.,&Asendorpf,J.B.(2008).Beyondglobalsociosexualorientations:
Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship
human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of socio- and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
sexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391. doi:10.1016/j. ogy, 95, 1113–1135. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.
evolhumbehav.2007.04.005. Petersen, J., & Hyde, J. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–
of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in 38. doi:10.1037/a0017504.

123
 Arch Sex Behav

Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality
and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034–1045. doi:10.1177/0146
Journal of Sex Research, 48, 149–165. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011. 1672972310004.
551851. Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of J. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried
Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 181–196. doi:10.1177/02654 opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 598–610.
0758900600203. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.666816.
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1995). Gender differences in beliefs about Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in
the causes of male and female sexual desire. Personal Relation- sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity.
ships, 2, 345–358. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00097.x. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. doi:10.
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics 1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.
desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic
and Human Sexuality, 9, 25–37. doi:10.1300/J056v09n01_02. partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51. doi:10.1111/j.
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). 1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x.
Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and
their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relation-
Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12,1–21. doi:10.1300/J056v12n03_01. ship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29,
Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2013a). The impact of general and moral 434–461. doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1020.
commitment in derogating attractive alternatives. In A. Garcia & J. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of
Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Relações românticas, conjugais e parassociais physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance
(pp. 39–52). Vitória, Brazil: UFES. of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2013b). The Investment Model Scale (IMS): ogy, 59, 1192–1201. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1192.
Further studies on construct validation and development of a shorter Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosex-
version (IMS-S). Journal of General Psychology, 140, 16–28. doi:10. uality and romantic relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S.
1080/00221309.2012.710276. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships
Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). Sociosexuality, commit- (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ment, sexual infidelity and perceptions of infidelity: Data from the Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual stan-
Second Love website. Journal of Sex Research Online First,. doi:10. dards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences.
1080/00224499.2016.1145182. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1395–1405. doi:10.1007/s10508-
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associ- 013-0145-6.
ations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment:
Psychology, 16, 172–186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4. Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the Investment Model: The Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 243–257. doi:10.1111/j.
development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in 1756-2589.2010.00060.x.
heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Tempelhof, T. C., & Allen, J. S. (2008). Partner-specific investment strategies:
ogy, 45, 101–117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101. Similarities and differences in couples and associations with sociosexual
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close orientation and attachment dimensions. Personality and Individual
relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Differences, 45, 41–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.016.
Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. doi:10.1177/026540759301 Vangelisti, A. L., & Gerstenberger, M. (2004). Communication and marital
000202. infidelity. In J. Duncombe, K. Harrison, G. Allan, & D. Marsden (Eds.),
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model The state of affairs: Explorations in infidelity and commitment (pp. 59–
Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of 78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors:
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x. Whytwofactorsarebetterthanone.JournalofResearch in Personality,
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual 41, 917–922. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007.
variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104. doi:10.1037/ of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.
0022-3514.85.1.85. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 699.
48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275. doi:10.1017/S01405
25X05000051.
Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic
involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex
Roles, 31, 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01560274.

123