academic essay Gender, Sexuality, Race, Ethnicity, and Age influence individuals’ experiences of the social world and the social problems

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Sex drive and sociosexuality moderated by gender identity and gender identity fluidity Amanda J. Bakker, Benjamin R. Walker⁎

School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, 18 Innovation Walk, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, VIC 3800, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Sex drive Sociosexual orientation Sociosexuality Gender identity Gender identity fluidity Gender static

A B S T R A C T

While some research has been conducted on the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality, little has been conducted regarding whether gender identity or gender identity fluidity moderates the relationship be- tween them. Adults (N = 222) completed an online survey using the Sex Drive Questionnaire, the revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, and the Gender Identity Fluidity Scale. In line with hypotheses, sex drive positively predicted sociosexuality. Unexpectedly, gender identity did not moderate the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality. However, gender identity fluidity was found to moderate the association between sex drive and sociosexuality.

1. Introduction

Despite the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and the narrowing gap in sexual behaviour between genders (Sprecher, Treger, & Sakaluk, 2013), limited attention has been given to sociosexuality and its relationship with sex drive. Casual sex (unrestricted sociosexuality) can be defined as sexual intercourse without commitment (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). With up to 64% of youths aged 18–24 experiencing at least one casual sexual en- counter (Vrangalova & Ong, 2014), casual sex is increasingly becoming the hallmark of modern dating (Garcia, Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012), rendering sociosexual orientation an integral construct in the field of social psychology. Deciphering key factors that contribute to individuals with unrestricted sociosexuality (namely gender identity and its fluidity) can help to understand varying perspectives on sociosexuality and their impact on relationships.

1.1. Sociosexuality

Sociosexuality (also known as sociosexual orientation) regards whether a person is willing to engage in casual sexual relations without emotional involvement or a deep emotional connection is required prior to engaging in intercourse (Banai & Pavela, 2015). In short, sociosexuality is the extent to which one engages in sexual activity outside of a committed relationship (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Individuals willing to engage in casual sex without emotional involvement are said to be unrestricted (or less re- stricted) in their sociosexuality; individuals who prefer a deep emotional connection prior to engaging in intercourse are considered restricted (or

more restricted) in their sociosexuality. Empirical evidence suggests that people with unrestricted sociosexuality are more likely to engage in in- fidelity (Mattingly et al., 2011). Sociosexuality has also been found to po- sitively correlate with both pornography consumption, attitudes towards pornography, and a range of sexually explicit material (Prokop, 2015); that is, those with less restricted sociosexuality enjoy more positive attitudes towards pornography, view it more often, and view a broader range. In- dividuals with unrestricted sociosexuality are also at risk of sexually transmitted diseases (such as human immunodeficiency virus), unwanted pregnancy, sexual violence, and mental health issues (Seal & Agostinelli, 1994). Other research found that unrestricted sociosexuality is correlated with undesirable behaviours, more so in men than women (Yost & Zurbriggen, 2006).

The evidence suggests that men score higher on the sociosexuality than women; men on average are less restricted with their sociosexuality than women (Meskó et al., 2014; Neto, 2015; Puts et al., 2015; Rammsayer & Troche, 2013; Rammsayer, Borter, & Troche, 2017; Sprecher et al., 2013). Not only do men have higher scores on sociosexuality generally, they have higher scores across each of the facets of sociosexuality including behaviour, attitude and desire (Jankowski, Díaz-Morales, Vollmer, & Randler, 2014; Meskó et al., 2014; Rammsayer et al., 2017). This implies that men are generally more inclined than women to engage in casual sexual relations.

1.2. Sex drive

Sex drive, a colloquialism for libido, is the strength of sexual mo- tivation (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001); essentially, whether or

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109884 Received 26 October 2018; Received in revised form 30 January 2020; Accepted 1 February 2020

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.R. Walker).

Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109884

Available online 12 February 2020 0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

not one feels motivated to engage in sexual relations. Men on average have more heightened sexual desires than women (Baumeister et al., 2001; Lippa, 2006; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004). Lippa (2009) analysed data from 53 nations regarding sex drive and sociosexuality and found that men have a more consistent sex drive whereas women's drives are more susceptible to variability, with hormones affecting sexual desire but not women's sociosexuality (Jones et al., 2018). Further research suggested otherwise, with polyamorous men and women having higher levels of testosterone (a sex hormone which can be used to measure sex drive) than their monogamous (and sometimes single) counterparts (Edelstein, Chopik, & Kean, 2011; Gray, 2003; van Anders & Watson, 2006).

Sex drive has been found to be correlated yet distinct from socio- sexuality (Ostovich & Sabini, 2004), with sex drive and sociosexuality being moderately correlated for men, yet highly correlated for women. This suggests that the higher the sex drive, the less restricted the so- ciosexuality, particularly for women. While study five of the validation study of the original sociosexual orientation inventory suggested it was uncorrelated with sex drive (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), it utilised a measure that is reliant on a partner and therefore may not be as ac- curate as it may rely on observable behaviour. Another study found sex drive was correlated with sociosexuality, such that people with high sex drives were more likely to have less restricted sociosexuality (Ostovich, 2005). This does not suggest, however, that people with high sex drives are not, as a rule, monogamous. More research in this area is required in order to ascertain the fundamental and predictive re- lationship between sex drive and sociosexuality as it has tangible ra- mifications for all.

1.3. Gender identity

Gender identity, once understood as a dichotomous demographic, is now considered to be an intricate combination of masculinity and femininity identities (Holt & Ellis, 1998). Gender identity is not ne- cessarily whether one is biologically male or female (a binary measure often used in research); rather, inclusive gender identity measures one's affiliation with being masculine and feminine on a continuum (Fraser, 2008). Traditional gender norms are social constructs; they change over time, evidenced by women becoming more independent and men permitting themselves to be more sensitive towards others (Edwards & Jones, 2009).

The majority of studies look at gender in terms of biological sex differences but gender identity provides more nuanced insight. Gender identity has been found to be significantly related to sociosexuality with masculinity related to unrestricted sociosexuality and femininity re- lated to restricted sociosexuality (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). Women with less restricted sociosexuality have been found to be more masculine in their gender identities than their female counterparts (Ostovich, 2005; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004). Furthermore, gender iden- tity was found to have mediating effects on the relationship between biological sex and sociosexuality (Rammsayer et al., 2017); more spe- cifically, masculinity was correlated with sociosexual behaviour re- gardless of one's biological sex. To confuse these findings, sex drive was also found to be correlated with biological sex, but not gender identity (Ostovich, 2005). Attitude (as a facet of sociosexuality), however, was influenced equally by both sex and gender identity (Rammsayer et al., 2017). Another study found masculine men and women (when het- erosexual) have more sexual partners (Zietsch et al., 2008).

Despite the clear evidence that men have higher sociosexuality, this is not to say that individuals do not vary across the scale regardless of their biological sex (Rammsayer et al., 2017). The fact that the within- sex variance on sociosexuality was found to be more than double the between-sex variance (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) suggests that there are more important differences than gender, and that gender identity has the potential to provide insight. Limited attention has been given to the relationship between gender roles (masculinity and femininity) and

sociosexuality (Rammsayer et al., 2017). The attention that has been given thus far has yielded ambiguous and conflicting results (Rammsayer et al., 2017) with minimal studies using both male and female participants.

1.4. Gender identity fluidity

As an extension of gender identity, gender identity fluidity is es- sentially whether one's gender identity changes throughout one's life- span, and (for those that do change) by how much. While some in- dividuals experience a stable gender (gender static), others find their gender to be more fluid. This notion of the fluidity of gender identity, as opposed to the essentialist views of the dichotomous nature of gender, is supported by queer theory which encourages non-binary expressions of both gender and sexuality (Halperin, 2008). Literature is limited on the fluidity of gender identity; from what has been published, it is al- most entirely biased by the exclusive use of transgender adults in stu- dies, not accounting for the gender identity of cisgender individuals (individuals who identify with their birth sex).

Two particular studies were of note. In a qualitative study, trans- gender individuals were directly asked whether their gender identity was fluid or categorical. The participants asserted that their gender identity was fluid, on a continuum and changeable over time (Nagoshi, Brzuzy, & Terrell, 2012). Furthermore, a quantitative study looked at deconstructing beliefs and perceptions regarding gender roles, gender identity, and sexual orientation amongst transgender in- dividuals. It explored the gender identity amongst transgender in- dividuals and found more than a third self-described their gender identity as fluid (Factor & Rothblum, 2008), not dichotomous. Bore's (2016) Sex, Gender and Sexual Diversity Survey captures gender variability outside of the heteronormative dichotomies. Further re- search is required to understand gender identity fluidity in the general population.

1.5. Aims and hypotheses

This study aims to expand on literature regarding sexuality and individual difference. It seeks to ascertain the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality as well as the moderating effects of gender identity and gender identity fluidity. This will help clarify the nature of people's sexual proclivities and how this relates to gender identity and its fluidity, especially in modern society where gender norms are changing. This study uses a general, rather than specific, population to better learn about these issues. Hypothesis 1 was that sex drive would positively predict sociosexual orientation. This hypothesis is in line with previous research showing such relations (e.g., Ostovich & Sabini, 2004). Hypothesis 2 was that gender identity would moderate the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality, such that the relationship would be stronger for individuals with higher levels of masculinity. This is in line with previous research showing cisgender men and more masculine individuals have higher sex drives and so- ciosexuality (e.g., Lippa, 2009; Meskó et al., 2014). Hypothesis 3 was that gender identity fluidity would moderate the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality, such that the relationship would be stronger for individuals with higher levels of fluidity. While this hy- pothesis is novel, it is proposed because non-traditional gender identity is expected to be also related to more comfort with non-traditional sexual expressions.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Using G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009), an a priori power analysis suggested 107 participants were required for 95% power to determine a medium sized effect at the .05 level of

A.J. Bakker and B.R. Walker Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109884

2

significance. Participants were 222 adults (65% women, 35% men) with age ranges including 35–44 years (39.6%), 25–34 years (35.1%), 18–24 years (10.8%), 45–54 years (7.2%), 55–64 years (5.0%), and 65–74 years (2.3%). The inclusion criterion was adults 18 years and over. Children 17 years and under were excluded. The study was available worldwide but based in Australia and 92% of respondents denoted Australian residency. In terms of ethnicity, the study included Caucasians (91%), Asians or Pacific Islanders (4%), Indigenous Aus- tralians (2%), Hispanics or Latinos (1%), and other (3%). Relationship status was recorded with participants as single (29%), married (26%), in a relationship (24%), engaged (5%), in a complicated relationship (5%), in an open relationship (3%), separated (3%), in a domestic partnership (2%), divorced (2%), in a civil union (0.5%), or widowed (0.5%). Participants’ education was reported as at least one tertiary degree (49%), some college but no degree (31%), high school (18%), and less than high school (3%). As no incentive was offered, all parti- cipants contributed their time as volunteers.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory The revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R; Penke &

Asendorpf, 2008) is a 9-item scale measuring three facets of socio- sexuality, namely behaviour, attitude, and desire. The bipolar scale ranges from highly restricted individuals requiring deep emotional connection prior to sexual activities, to highly unrestricted individuals requiring no emotional connection prior to sexual activities (Schmitt, 2005). An example item is “I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying casual sex with different partners”, rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). The scale had good internal reliability (α = 0.83).

2.2.2. Sex Drive Questionnaire Sex drive is the strength of one's sexual motivation (Baumeister et al.,

2001). The Sex Drive Questionnaire (SDQ) by Ostovich and Sabini (2004) was utilised to measure the sex drive of each participant. Unlike the mea- sure used by Simpson and Gangestad (study 5; 1991), an advantage of this measure is that none of the items are reliant on participants requiring a partner. The SDQ is a 4-item measure of sex drive with a combination of 6- point and 7-point scales with varying anchors. An example item is “How would you compare your level of sex drive with that of the average person of your gender and age?”, rated from 1 (very much lower) to 7 (very much greater). The scale had good internal reliability (α = 0.86).

2.2.3. Bem Sex Role Inventory Gender identity is one's self-identification with a particular gender.

Popular for measuring gender identity, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) was utilised to measure masculinity and femininity. The scale has 20 items each for masculinity and femininity. For each of

these items (for example, “Assertive”, “Affectionate”), participants considered how well each trait applies to them on a 7-point scale from 1 (almost never true) to 7 (almost always true). The scale had good in- ternal reliability for masculinity (α = .85) and acceptable internal re- liability for femininity (α = 0.72).

2.2.4. Gender Identity Fluidity Scale A fluid gender identity is one that changes throughout one's life-

span. Recognising the need for measurements that cater for the fluidity of life, Bore (2016) created the Sex, Gender and Sexual Diversity Survey which covers biological sex, gender identity, sexual identity, sexual behaviour, sexual attraction, and romantic attraction on continuums. For the purpose of this study, only the gender identity fluidity scale was utilised. The item is “How constant or changeable has your gender identity been over your life-time?”, rated from 1 (never changed) to 7 (often changes). Internal reliability is not relevant for 1-item scales.

2.3. Procedure

This study had ethics approved by a local institutional review board prior to commencement. The study was advertised online by way of a public address on social media including Facebook. Participants clicked on a link and read the explanatory statement. Questionnaires and de- mographic details were then completed. No incentive was provided to participants other than their contribution to psychological science and the study took approximately 10 minutes to complete

3. Results

Correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Three moderation analyses were conducted using Model 1 Hayes’ (2017) SPSS PROCESS macro. Gender identity was examined using both masculinity and femininity as moderators in separate analyses. Sex drive as a predictor of sociosexuality was analysed using the main effect of the moderation analyses. Variables were mean centred.

Sex drive was examined as predictor of sociosexuality. It was found that sex drive positively predicted sociosexuality (see the main effect of Tables 2–4). The 28–32% variance represented a large effect size.

Gender identity was examined as a potential variable that moder- ates the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality. Using both

Table 1 Correlations and descriptive statistics of study variables.

Variable Sex drive Sociosexuality Femininity Masculinity Fluidity

Sex drive – Sociosexuality 0.52⁎⁎ – Gender identity femininity −0.03 –0.16* – Gender identity masculinity 0.25⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎ −0.09 – Gender identity fluidity −0.02 0.10 0.09 −0.03 – Mean 15.41 39.67 4.86 4.76 2.19 SD 4.53 14.63 0.59 0.07 1.56 α 0.86 0.83 0.75 0.85 N/A Actual range 4–25 9–71 2.85–6.45 2.40–6.55 1–7 Potential range 4–26 9–81 1–7 1–7 1–7

⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01.

Table 2 Linear model of predictors of sociosexuality for femininity.

b SE B t p

Sex drive (centered) 1.69 [1.35, 2.03] 0.17 9.80 < .001 Femininity (centered) −3.80 [−6.54, −1.05] 1.39 −2.73 .007 Sex drive x femininity 0.32 [−0.24, 0.88] 0.28 1.11 .27

Note. R2 = 0.30.

A.J. Bakker and B.R. Walker Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109884

3

femininity (see Table 2) and masculinity (see Table 3) as moderators using separate analyses, gender identity was not found to moderate the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality. The 30% and 28% proportion of variance represented a large effect size.

Gender identity fluidity was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality. It was found that sex drive positively predicted sociosexuality moderated by gender identity fluidity (see Table 4). When gender identity fluidity was high, there was a significant positive relationship between sex drive and so- ciosexuality (b = 1.21, t = 3.90, p < .001, 95% CI [.60, 1.82]). At the mean value of gender identity fluidity, there was a significant positive relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality, (b = 1.73, t = 10.67, p < .001, 95% CI [1.41, 2.05]). Finally, when gender identity fluidity is low, there was a significant positive relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality (b = 2.13, t = 10.94, p < .001, 95% CI [1.75, 2.52]). The 32% proportion of variance represented a large effect size. See Fig. 1 for a graphical display of the simple slopes.

4. Discussion

The study aimed to clarify the relationship between sex drive, so- ciosexuality, gender identity, and gender identity fluidity in a general population. The first hypothesis was supported with sex drive positively predicting sociosexuality. The second hypothesis, however, was not supported, with gender identity not moderating the relationship

between sex drive and sociosexuality. The third hypothesis was sup- ported with gender identity fluidity moderating the relationship be- tween sex drive and sociosexuality.

Despite Simpson and Gangestad (1991) finding no relationship be- tween sexual desire and sociosexuality, the current study found a re- lationship between the two constructs. This difference could be because Simpson and Gangestad used a behavioural measure that was reliant on a partner, whereas the current study intentionally used a measure that was not reliant on a partner (to not bias the results). This study is consistent with another, more recent study that found a relationship between the two constructs (Ostovich & Sabini, 2004). The results re- garding sex drive are consistent with men, on average, having higher sex drives than women (Baumeister et al., 2001; Lippa, 2006; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004). The results regarding sociosexuality are also consistent with the findings that men on average have less restricted socio- sexuality than women (Meskó et al., 2014; Neto, 2015; Rammsayer & Troche, 2013; Rammsayer et al., 2017; Sprecher et al., 2013).

Gender identity was not found to moderate the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality using either masculinity or femininity. This finding is inconsistent with other literature. For example, biological sex and sociosexuality were mediated by gender identity in another study (Rammsayer et al., 2017). Other studies have examined direct effects and found relations between masculine gender identity, sex drive and sociosexuality, but less so for feminine gender identity (Ostovich, 2005; Ostovich & Sabini, 2004; Zietsch et al., 2008). Bem (1974) reported highly reliable test-retest reliability of the BRSI over a four week period, and a review of the construct validity of the BSRI supported it as a valid measure of gender identity (Lenney, 1991). A number of studies have supported the convergent and discriminant validity of the BSRI (Bornstein et al., 2004). However, the standard deviation of masculinity and femininity (particularly masculinity) was very low which suggests the measure does not assess the spectrum of current gender identity well. A possible reason for the finding is that the BSRI might be an outdated measure for measuring gender identity considering changing gender norms.

Gender identity fluidity was found to moderate the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality. The effect was significant at low, moderate, and high levels. However, the relationship appears to be complicated, as can be seen from the cross-over effect on the graph. The hypothesis was supported, because at low and moderate levels of sex drive, high gender identity fluidity strengthened the relationship be- tween the predictors. This suggests that people with a non-traditional gender identity are also more comfortable with expressing their sex drive into a desire for more sexual partners. Because their sex drive is low to moderate, in practice this may not translate to a large number of partners and so their sexual practices are not necessarily vastly different from normal sexual practices. As can be seen from the cross-over effect on the graph, high gender fluidity significantly lowered the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality, though by a smaller amount than low and moderate gender identity fluidity. This result may be because people with high sex drive are already likely to have higher desire for more partners, so having higher gender identity fluidity may not add to additional desire. These results may be particularly relevant for queer theory that encourages individuals to position themselves outside of societal norms on indicators of gender and sexuality (Halperin, 2008). Previous research (e.g., Factor & Rothblum, 2008; Nagoshi et al., 2012) found transgender individuals to be more likely to be gender fluid so these results may assist in understanding their orientations, desires and behaviours.

4.1. Limitations

Self-report measures were utilised which are more susceptible to social desirability effects despite anonymity (Norwood, Hughes, & Amico, 2016). While the BSRI is arguably outdated given societal changes, it has been well utilised in research. Bore's one-item gender

Table 3 Linear model of predictors of sociosexuality for masculinity.

. b SE B t p

Sex drive (centered) 1.63 [1.27, 1.99] 0.18 8.90 < .001 Masculinity (centered) 1.83 [−0.59, 4.25] 1.23 1.49 .14 Sex drive x masculinity −0.07 [−0.32, 0.47] 0.20 0.37 .71

Note. R2 = 0.28.

Table 4 Linear model of predictors of sociosexuality for fluidity.

B SE B t p

Sex drive (centered) 1.73 [1.41, 2.05] 16 10.67 < .001 Gender identity fluidity (centered) 0.84 [−0.30, 1.99] 0.58 1.45 .15 Sex drive x gender identity fluidity −0.33 [0.61, −0.06] 0.14 −2.37 .02

Note. R2 = 0.32.

Fig. 1. Simple slopes equations of the regression of sociosexuality on sex drive at three levels of gender identity fluidity.

A.J. Bakker and B.R. Walker Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109884

4

identity fluidity measure, while in its infancy, was useful for ascer- taining said fluidity for the purposes of this study. Future studies could incorporate third party ratings and/or behavioural measures. The re- search was cross-sectional and thus has predictive limitations. Causality between measured variables cannot be inferred due to the correlative nature of the current study. Future studies should consider longitudinal or experimental designs.

4.2. Conclusion

In conclusion, sex drive positively predicted sociosexuality, such that the higher one's sex drive is, the higher is their sociosexuality. While gender identity was not found to moderate the relationship be- tween sex drive and sociosexuality, this could be due to limitations of the BSRI with changes in gender norms since its development. Finally, gender identity fluidity was found to moderate the relationship be- tween sex drive and sociosexuality which suggests gender identity fluidity plays an important role in the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality. At low and moderate levels of sex drive, gender identity fluidity strengthens the relationship between sex drive and sociosexuality, whereas at high levels of fluidity and sex drive the re- lationship is weakened. Overall, this study assists in a greater under- standing of gender and its relationship to sexual desire, behaviour, and attitudes.

References

Banai, B., & Pavela, I. (2015). Two-dimensional structure of the sociosexual orientation inventory and its personality correlates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 1–7. https://doi. org/10.1177/1474704915604541.

Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_5.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215.

Bore, M. (2016). Sex, gender and sexual diversity survey. Australia: The University of Newcastle.

Bornstein, R. F., Geiselman, K. J., Gallagher, H. A., Ng, H. M., Hughes, E. E., & Languirand, M. A. (2004). Construct validity of the relationship profile test: Impact of gender, gender role, and gender role stereotype. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_15.

Edelstein, R. S., Chopik, W. J., & Kean, E. L. (2011). Sociosexuality moderates the asso- ciation between testosterone and relationship status in men and women. Hormones and Behaviour, 60, 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.05.007.

Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of college men's gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0063.

Factor, R., & Rothblum, E. (2008). Exploring gender identity and community among three groups of transgender individuals in the United States: MTFs, FTMs, and genderqu- eers. Health and Sociology Review, 17, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.451. 17.3.235.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149.

Fraser, G. (2008). Evaluating inclusive gender identity measures for use in quantitative psychological research. Psychology and Sexuality, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19419899.2018.1497693.

Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0027911.

Gray, P. B. (2003). Marriage, parenting, and testosterone variation among Kenyan Swahili men. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 122, 279–286. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10508-016-0929-6.

Halperin, D. M. (2008). The normalization of queer theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v45n02_17.

Hayes, A. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem sex-role in- ventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018836923919.

Jankowski, K. S., Díaz-Morales, J. F., Vollmer, C., & Randler, C. (2014). Morningness- eveningness and sociosexuality: Evening females are less restricted than morning ones. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2014.04.006.

Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., & DeBruine, L. M. (2018). The Journal of International Society of Psychoneuroendocrinology, 88, 153–157. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.12.015.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

Lenney, E. (1991). Sex roles: The measurement of masculinity, femininity, and andro- gyny. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of per- sonality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 573–660). New York: Academic.

Lippa, R. A. (2006). Is high sex drive associated with increased sexual attraction to both sexes? It depends on whether you are male or female. Psychological Science, 17, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01663.x.

Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8.

Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00224540903536162.

Meskó, N., Láng, A., & Kocsor, F. (2014). The Hungarian version of sociosexual orienta- tion inventory revised (SOI-R): Sex and age differences. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v8i1.130 8.

Nagoshi, J. L., Brzuzy, S., & Terrell, H. K. (2012). Deconstructing the complex perceptions of gender roles, gender identity, and sexual orientation among transgender in- dividuals. Feminism and Psychology, 22, 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0959353512461929.

Neto, F. (2015). Revisiting correlates of sociosexuality for men and women: The role of love relationships and psychological maladjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.033.

Norwood, M. S., Hughes, J. P., & Amico, K. R. (2016). The validity of self-reported be- haviors: Methods for estimating underreporting of risk behaviors. Annals of Epidemiology, 29, 612–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.07.011.

Ostovich, J. M. (2005). Sex drive, sexual attitudes, and sexual behaviours. University of Pennsylvania.

Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264754.

Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more dif- ferentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic re- lationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.

Puts, D. A., Pope, L. E., Hill, A. K., Cárdenas, R. A., Welling, L. L. M., Wheatley, J. R., & Breedlove, S. M. (2015). Fulfilling desire: Evidence for negative feedback between men's testosterone, sociosexual psychology, and sexual partner number. Hormones and Behavior, 70, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.01.006.

Prokop, P. (2015). Perception of intensity of sperm competition on the part of males. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.12.006.

Rammsayer, T. H., & Troche, S. J. (2013). The relationship between sociosexuality and aspects of body image in men and women: A structural equation modeling approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1173–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013- 0114-0.

Rammsayer, T. H., Borter, N., & Troche, S. J. (2017). The effects of sex and gender-role characteristics on facets of sociosexuality in heterosexual young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1236903.

Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000051.

Seal, D. W., & Agostinelli, G. (1994). Individual differences associated with high-risk sexual behaviour: Implications for intervention programmes. AIDS Care, 6, 393–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540129408258653.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.6.870.

Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and socio- sexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.

van Anders, S. M., & Watson, N. V. (2006). Relationship status and testosterone in North American heterosexual and non-heterosexual men and women: Cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31, 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. psyneuen.2006.01.008.

Vrangalova, Z., & Ong, A. D. (2014). Who benefits from casual sex? The moderating role of sociosexuality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 883–891. https://doi. org/10.1177/1948550614537308.

Yost, M. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2006). Gender differences in the enactment of socio- sexuality: An examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, and aggressive sexual behaviour. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552311.

Zietsch, B. P., Morley, K. I., Shekar, S. N., Verweij, K. J. H., Keller, M. C., Macgregor, S., ... Martin, N. G. (2008). Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 424–433. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.07.002.

A.J. Bakker and B.R. Walker Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109884

5