Do men seek more short-term mates than women? Buss and Schmitt (1993) showed a pattern of mean difference in the ideal number of sexual partners men and women desired over various time frames. We replicated these mean sex differences (e.g., ideal number over the next 30 years: Ms = 7.69 and 2.78 for men and women, respectively), but in both data sets the sampling distributions were highly skewed. In Study 1, we found few sex differences in medians across time frames (e.g., ideal number over the next 30 years: Mdn = 1 for both men and women). In Study 2, most college men (98.9%) and women (99.2%) said they wanted to settle down with one mutually exclusive sexual partner at some point in their life, ideally within the next 5 years. Neither medians in number of partners desired overall before settling down (replicating Study 1) nor medians in short-term partners desired before settling down (Mdn = 0) differed significantly by gender. Rather, men and women concurred: Short-term mating is not what humans typically seek.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoneauC.A.
(1960).
The effects of violations of assumptions underlying the t-test.
Psychological Bulletin,
57, 49–64.
2.
BoxG.E.P.
(1954).
Some theorems on quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems, I. Effect of inequality of variance in the one-way classification.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
25, 290–302.
3.
BradleyJ.V.
(1982).
The insidious L-shaped distribution.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
20, 85–88.
4.
BrownM.B.ForsytheA.B.
(1974).
The small sample behavior of some statistics which test the equality of several means.
Technometrics,
16, 129–132.
5.
BussD.M.
(1999).
Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BussD.M.SchmittD.P.
(1993).
Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.
Psychological Review,
100, 204–232.
CressieN.A.C.WhitfordH.J.
(1986).
How to use the two sample t-test.
Biometrical Journal,
28, 131–148.
9.
DaviesP.M.WeatherburnP.HuntA.J.HicksonF.C.McManusT.J.CoxonA.P.
(1992).
The sexual behaviour of young gay men in England and Wales.
AIDS Care,
4, 259–272.
10.
DeStenoD.A.SaloveyP.
(1996).
Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model.
Psychological Science,
7, 367–372.
11.
DixsonA.F.
(1998).
Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and human beings.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
12.
FuentesA.
(2000).
Human mating models can benefit from comparative primatology and careful methodology.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
23, 602–603.
13.
GlassG.V.PeckhamP.D.SandersJ.R.
(1972).
Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the analysis of variance and covariance.
Review of Educational Research,
42, 237–288.
14.
GrazianoW.G.Jensen-CampbellL.A.ToddM.FinchJ.F.
(1997).
Interpersonal attraction from an evolutionary perspective: Women's reactions to dominant and prosocial men. In
SimpsonJ.A.KenrickD.T. (Eds.),
Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141–167).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
HrdyS.B.
(1999).
The woman that never evolved.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1981)
16.
KeselmanH.J.KeselmanJ.C.GamesP.A.
(1991).
Maximum familywise Type I error rate: The least significant difference, Newman-Keuls, and other multiple comparison procedures.
Psychological Bulletin,
110, 155–161.
17.
KingV.L.BroonerR.K.BigelowG.E.SchmidtC.W.FelchL.J.GazawayP.M.
(1994).
Condom use rates for specific sexual behaviors among opioid abusers entering treatment.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence,
35, 231–238.
18.
LaumannE.O.GagnonJ.H.MichaelR.T.MichaelsS.
(1994).
The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
MillerL.C.FishkinS.A.
(1997).
On the dynamics of human bonding and reproductive success: Seeking windows on the adapted-for human-environmental interface. In
SimpsonJ.A.KenrickD.T. (Eds.),
Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 197–235).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
MillerL.C.PedersenW.C.PutchaA.D.
(2001).
Distinct mating mechanisms for men and women? From smoke, mirrors, and leaps of faith … toward an embodied evolutionary dynamics. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
21.
NeaveH.R.GrangerC.W.J.
(1968).
A monte carlo study comparing various two-sample tests for differences in mean.
Technometrics,
10, 509–522.
22.
NunnC.L.GittlemanJ.L.AntonovicsJ.
(2000).
Promiscuity and the primate immune system.
Science,
290, 1168–1170.
23.
PedhazurE.J.SchmelkinL.P.
(1991).
Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
RothspanS.ReadS.J.
(1996).
Present versus future time perspective and HIV risk among heterosexual college students.
Health Psychology,
15, 131–134.
25.
TabachnickB.G.FidellL.S.
(1996).
Using multivariate statistics.
New York: HarperCollins.
26.
WilcoxR.R.
(1990).
Comparing the means of two independent groups.
Biometrical Journal,
32, 771–780.
27.
WilcoxR.R.
(1992).
Comparing the medians of dependent groups.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
45, 151–162.
28.
WilcoxR.R.
(1994).
Some results on the Tukey-McLaughlin and Yuen methods for trimmed means when distributions are skewed.
Biometrical Journal,
36, 259–273.
29.
WilcoxR.R.
(1996).
Statistics for the social sciences.
San Diego: Academic Press.
30.
WilcoxR.R.
(1997).
Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing.
San Diego: Academic Press.
31.
WilcoxR.R.CharlinV.L.
(1986).
Comparing medians: A monte carlo study.
Journal of Educational Statistics,
11, 263–274.
