Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2009. 7(3): 374-397
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Article
Structural Relations among Negative Affect, Mate Value, and Mating Effort
Beth Randi Kirsner, Department of Psychology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA. Email:
bkirsner@kennesaw.edu (Corresponding author)
Aurelio José Figueredo, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. Email:
ajf@u.arizona.edu.
W. Jake Jacobs, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. Email:
wjj@u.arizona.edu.
Abstract: We compared the ability of models based on evolutionary economic theory and
Life History (LH) Theory to explain relations among self-reported negative affect, mate
value, and mating effort. Method: Two hundred thirty-eight undergraduates provided
multiple measures of these latent constructs, permitting us to test a priori predictions based
on Kirsner, Figueredo, and Jacobs (2003). We compared the fit of the initial model to the
fit of five alternative theory-driven models using nested model comparisons of Structural
Equations Models. Rejecting less parsimonious and explanatory models eliminated the
original model. Two equally parsimonious models explained the data pattern well. The
first, based on evolutionary economic theory, specified that Negative Affect increases both
Personal Mate Value and Mating Effort via the direct effects specified in the original
model. The second, based on LH Theory, specified that Negative Affect, Personal Mate
Value, and Mating Effort relate spuriously through a common latent construct, the LH
Factor. The primary limitation of the present study is generalizability. We used self-reports
taken from a young, university-based sample that included a spectrum of affective states.
We cannot know how well these models generalize to an older population or to actual
behavior. Both models predict the presence of a rich pattern of mate acquisition and
retention behaviors, including an alarming set of behavioral tactics often not considered or
targeted during treatment. Moreover, each model suggests a unique set of problems may
arise after an effective intervention. We describe several ways to distinguish these models
empirically.
Keywords: negative affect, mate value, mating effort, Life History Theory, depression,
anxiety
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Introduction
Both affect and behavior play a central role in human short-term and long-term
sexual relationships. Personal experiences, as well as evidence from the humanities and the
various social sciences, clearly support this assertion. Our purpose is to contribute to this
knowledge base by estimating the causal structure and importance of a subset of these
relationships—those among negative affect, mate value, and mating effort—using a
Structural Equations Model approach. To move us toward this goal, we must first
familiarize the reader with a few terms.
Mating Strategy refers to a coordinated set of behaviors that evolved to solve the
adaptive problems of selecting, attracting, and retaining sexual partners (e.g., Buss and
Schmitt, 1993; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970; Gangestad and Simpson, 2000). Consistent with
social exchange and evolutionary economic theory (Converse and Foa, 1993; Huston and
Burgess, 1979; Kelly and Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), people tend to mate
with individuals who possess similar overall value as mates (Kirsner, Figueredo, and
Jacobs, 2003; Miller, 2000), leading some to suggest that relationship partners exchange
valued resources, and that the overall perceived value of these resources must be relatively
similar for each party to remain in the relationship (Cosmides and Tooby, 1992). The mate
value of potential (attainable) partners must be approximately equal to one’s own mate
value (e.g., Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad and Simpson, 2000; Kenrick, Sadalla,
Groth, and Trost, 1990). A potential partner with too little mate value is an unacceptable
long-term partner choice, whereas one with too much mate value might not be attainable or
retainable as a long-term mate. The image of the “ideal” and “attainable” partner should
therefore correspond closely (Kirsner et al., 2003).
Mating Effort is the total time, energy, attention, and other resources expended in
attracting or retaining a mate (Rowe, Vazsonyi, and Figueredo, 1997). The value of
investments of time and attention received from any given partner depends partially on the
partner’s mate value. One can (to some extent) increase one’s value as a mate by increasing
one’s efforts to provide the mate with valued resources. To preserve an unequal
relationship, one may compensate for an imbalance in mate value, whether real or
perceived, by increasing (or decreasing) mating effort.
Self-perceived Mate Value is an estimate of one’s bargaining power in the mating
marketplace. Unbiased self-perceived mate value must closely reflect the value
conspecifics place on particular attributes for social exchange to proceed equitably.
Negative Affect is associated with lower estimates of one’s own value as a mate (Kirsner et
al., 2003), perhaps resulting from systematic biases in the estimation of personal mate
value. In keeping with evolutionary economic theory, lower estimates of one’s own mate
value predict lower self-reported expectations for the mate value of potential partners
(Kirsner et al., 2003).
We expect negative affect to have differential effects on mate attraction and mate
retention. Though negative affect may decrease mate attraction efforts by encouraging
avoidance of social situations (Johnson, Aikman, Danner, and Elling, 1995; Lesure-Lester,
2001), negative affect should increase efforts to retain existing mates for several reasons.
Negative affect may: (1) increase desire to have a mate, to the extent that one believes a
mate will lessen one’s negative affect (McNeill, Rienzi, Butler, and Doty, 1996), (2)
decrease confidence in one’s ability to attract new or alternative mates (Smith and Betz,
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-375-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
2000), and (3) decrease desire to accept risks (Yuen and Lee, 2003), such as the risk of
giving up a current mate in hopes that a new mate might be an improvement. Finally,
depression is associated with lower self-perceived mate value (Kirsner et al., 2003); if
negative affect decreases self-perceived mate value relative to its level at the onset of the
relationship, it would require one to invest more to equalize the product of mate value and
mating effort between existing partners (Cosmides and Tooby, 1992).
Life History (LH) Theory (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Figueredo et al., 2006b)
provides an alternative interpretation of the relationships among Negative Affect, Mate
Value, and Mating Effort. LH Theory is an evolutionary theory that describes the strategic
allocation of an organism’s resources among the competing demands of continued survival
versus reproduction. Applied to humans, a “slow” life history strategy entails slower
development and delayed reproduction, indicators of the latent variable called the LH
Factor, all of which reflect a devotion of resources to parental effort and high offspring
survival. Conversely, a “fast” life history strategy entails faster development and earlier
reproduction, reflecting a devotion of resources to immediate and frequent reproduction
(i.e., mating effort).
Convergent lines of evidence suggest a positive association among a fast LH
strategy, Negative Affect (Figueredo, Vásquez, Brumbach, and Schneider, 2004; 2007b;
Sefcek, 2007), and Mating Effort (Figueredo et al., 2005). Further, a fast LH strategy
predicts both low personal and partner mate value (Figueredo, 2007; Figueredo, Sefcek,
and Jones, 2006a; Figueredo and Wolf, 2009). Fitness Indicator Theory (Miller, 2000)
predicts that mate value is an outward manifestation of enhanced phenotypic quality,
perhaps suggesting a higher genetic quality (when considering heritable phenotypic traits).
Strategic Sexual Pluralism Theory (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000) also predicts a positive
association between sexually-selected “good genes” and perceived mate value. LH Theory
predicts that fast LH individuals have received a lower quantity of parental and nepotistic
effort from genetic kin during development, and furthermore invest a lower quantity of
somatic effort in their own growth and maintenance throughout their lifespan (Ellis,
Figueredo, Brumbach, and Schlomer, 2009). This leads us to predict that faster LH
individuals will manifest a lower degree of phenotypic quality, as indicated by poorer
physical and mental health, than slower LH individuals, regardless of their underlying
genetic quality. Thus, faster LH individuals will manifest a decreased mate value (as
perceived by either self or others) as a result of this basic physiological condition. Indeed, a
slower LH strategy has been positively correlated to better physical and mental functioning,
as indicated by the well-validated RAND SF-36 Short Form (Wenner, 2009). Strategic
Sexual Pluralism Theory (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000) is a subset of LH theory and
would also predict a positive association between “good genes” and mate value. These
findings may also account for the association of a faster LH strategy with negative affect
and depressive symptoms. These data suggest that a single latent common factor,
representing a coordinated life history strategy, the LH Factor, underlies the relations
among Negative Affect, Mate Value, and Mating Effort.
We use our previous work (Kirsner et al., 2003), evolutionary economic theory, and
LH Theory to guide our design, data collection, analyses, and interpretation of those
analyses in the present manuscript. We compared six structural models, starting with one
based closely on the structural model described by Kirsner et al. Both the primary
theoretical model (Model 1.0), based on evolutionary economic theory, and the
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-376-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
reinterpreted theoretical model (Model 2.0), which also incorporates LH theory, share the
following hypotheses:
1. Personal Mate Value positively influences both Long-Term Partner (LTM) Mate
Value and Short-Term Partner (STP) Mate Value, as a product of matching on
overall mate value;
2. Both LTP Mate Value and STP Mate Value positively influence Mating Effort,
because the better the partner, the more one would presumably do to attract or retain
him or her;
3. Sex correlates positively with negative affect, reflecting the well-documented higher
rates of depression and anxiety among women (Kessler et al., 2005).
4. Sex predicts higher levels of both LTP and STP Mate Value because women are
more selective than men when choosing short-term partners (Kenrick, Sadalla,
Groth, and Trost, 1990). Counterintuitively, theory predicts that women and men
will be equally selective when choosing long-term partners. Therefore, we specified
a model predicting that women will be more selective, following the intuitive
model.
In addition, the primary theoretical model (Model 1.0) proposes that both direct and
indirect causal relationships exist between Negative Affect and Mating Effort, generating
the following predictions (see Figure 1):
1. Negative Affect negatively influences Personal Mate Value, as documented in
Kirsner et al. (2003), reflecting biased self-estimation;
2. Negative Affect positively influences Mating Effort, because it may: (a) increase
desire to have a mate because, as stated above, obtaining a mate might decrease
negative affect (McNeill, Rienzi, Butler, and Doty, 1996), (b) decrease confidence
in one’s ability to attract mates (Smith and Betz, 2000), (c) and decrease risk-taking
(Yuen and Lee, 2003). We expect the effort to retain an extant relationship to
outweigh the effect of Negative Affect on reduced efforts to attract a mate.
In contrast to Model 1.0, the reinterpreted theoretical model (Model 2.0) proposes that
negative affect, mating effort, and personal mate value are correlated because they are
convergent indicators of LH, generating the following prediction (see Figure 3):
1. The LH Factor negatively influences Negative Affect and Mating Effort and
positively influences Personal Mate Value, all of which are indicators of LH, as
discussed above.
Materials and Methods
Participants
The participants were 238 undergraduates, 99 male and 139 female, enrolled in
introductory-level Psychology courses at the University of Arizona. All participants were at
least 18 years old at the time of participation (mean age = 19.3).
Measures
Depression. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) provided a self-reported
estimate of the severity of depressive symptoms in the past two weeks (Beck, Steer, and
Brown, 1996). The inventory exhibits sound psychometric properties (Dozois, Dobson, and
Ahnberg, 1998).
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-377-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Anxiety. The Trait form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory provided a selfreported estimate of the severity of chronic symptoms of anxiety. This inventory also
shows sound psychometric properties (Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene, 1970).
The Mate Retention Scale (MRS; see Appendix D) provided subjective estimates of
the frequency with which the participant engaged in behavioral tactics designed to keep a
partner from leaving an extant relationship. We derived the items in the MRS in part from
Buss’ (1988) taxonomy of mate retention tactics. We added items designed to measure
overtly manipulative tactics, such as threats to harm self or partner if the partner leaves. We
obtained separate reports for the past year and prior to the past year; the figures reported for
these two time frames were averaged after determining that they were highly correlated.
Figure 1. Primary theoretical model (1.0).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Negative
Affect
+
Anxiety
Mating
Effort
+
+
-
Depression
+
+
Personal
Long-term
Mate +
Partner
Value
Mate Value
Cumulative
Sexual
Frequency
+
+
+
Sex
+
+
+
+
Short-term
Partner Mate
Value
Sexual
Situations
+
Mate
Retention
Scale
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Sexual Situations Scale (see Appendix C) provided subjective frequency
estimates of the physical and psychological contexts surrounding the participants’ sexual
activity during the past year. This includes, for example, having sex to attract or retain a
mate, having sex while intoxicated, having sex out of a sense of obligation, or having sex in
an attempt to regulate mood. The participants indicated what activities constitute “having
sex" elsewhere in the survey (see Appendix A).
The Cumulative Sexual Frequency scale (see Appendix B) provided subjective
estimates of how many times a participant “had sex” with male and with female partners in
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-378-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
his or her lifetime. Because of the restricted age range of participants, the models did not
control for current age of the participants.
The Mate Value Inventory (MVI; Kirsner et al., 2003) provided subjective estimates
of personal and partner mate value from five perspectives. Personal Mate Value measured
self-perceived mate value. Attainable Short-Term Partner Mate Value measured the mate
value of the best partner participants thought they could realistically attract to a brief
relationship. Ideal Short-Term Partner Mate Value measured the mate value of one’s ideal
partner for a brief fling. Short-Term Partner Mate Value was the average of these two
measures. Attainable Long-Term Partner Mate Value measured the mate value of the best
partner participants thought they could realistically attract for long-term relationship. Ideal
Long-Term Partner Mate Value measured the mate value of one’s ideal partner for a longterm relationship. Long-Term Partner Mate Value was the average of these two measures.
On all five forms of the MVI, participants indicated how the relevant person
compared to the participant’s peers, using a scale from -3 (extremely low on this
characteristic) through 0 (don’t care/average on this characteristic) to +3 (extremely high
on this characteristic).
Procedures
While completing a set of questionnaires during class, students were asked to
indicate whether they would be interested in participating in a study that involved questions
about romantic relationships and sexual behavior. They also completed screening
instruments to permit over-sampling of respondents with high scores on the BDI-II.
Interested students were contacted by phone to arrange appointments to participate.
During their appointments participants were seated in a room alone. After each
participant completed informed consent procedures, he or she completed a packet of
questionnaires and returned them to a box to maintain anonymity.
Statistical Analyses
We constructed our scales, measurement, and structural models using the
procedures detailed in Kirsner et al. (2003).
Balancing explanatory power with model parsimony, we used hierarchically nested
model comparisons (Widaman, 1985) to determine which of the alternative models
produced the best fit to the data as measured by practical fit indices and Chi-squared.
Practical fit indices, such as the Normed Fit Index (NFI) and the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) estimate how successfully a proposed model describes observed relations
among measured variables. Practical indices of fit compare the proposed model to a
complete “independence” model, a model that does not reproduce any of the observed
correlations. In other words, practical fit indices tell you how much better than nothing
your model performs.
In contrast, Chi-squared takes the opposite approach; it tells you how much less
than perfect your model is. Chi-squared estimates the extent to which a structural equations
model replicates the observed relations among variables (i.e., covariances in the data
collected) by statistically comparing a proposed model to a completely “saturated” model, a
model that reproduces the observed correlations perfectly.
When significant, Chi-squared indicates that the proposed model did not reproduce
the observed correlations among the variables within an acceptable margin of sampling
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-379-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
error. When non-significant, Chi-squared indicates that a model perfectly reproduced the
observed relations among the variables. An acceptable margin for sampling error is
conventionally defined as a 95% confidence interval around a discrepancy of zero between
the observed correlations and those predicted by the proposed model.
In addition to describing the acceptability of a model on its own, Chi-squared can
compare related models, using a technique known as Nested Model Comparisons (NMC).
In this context, one compares models in terms of the most parsimonious yet complete
explanation of the observed data. Using NMC, one can compare the fit of any two models
with hierarchically nested relations. Two models are hierarchically nested if they have
identical specifications except for one or more parameters that have been omitted in the
restricted model. In short, one can compare the fit of models with and without the pathways
whose necessity is being examined (James, Mulaik, and Brett, 1982).
When conducting a NMC, we make tradeoffs. Our scientific goal is threefold: a) to
propose parsimonious models that b) permit us to predict patterns of behavior and, under
the right circumstances, c) control or influence those patterns of behavior.
If we proposed a “saturated” model, with paths between every possible pair of
variables, the model explains 100% of the observed relations among the measured
variables. Such a model is of no practical use because, in effect, it says that everything
directly affects everything else—it merely restates the data contained in the covariance
matrix. Because perfect prediction of behavior is infinitely costly, we initially attempt to
get the most value out of the smallest possible number of structural pathways. As
researchers, we are generally interested in including only those variables and pathways
among them that surpass a threshold level of explanatory power. If we can eliminate a
particular pathway without losing significant explanatory power, we do so.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that the observed covariance among
measured variables includes error specific to the particular sample of the population. This
leads to a second tradeoff. Parsimony may suggest that a particular pathway does not
provide enough additional explanatory power to warrant inclusion in a model, whereas a
priori theory may lead one to conclude that the pathway only appears to be unnecessary
due to sampling error. In this case, it is necessary to devise true experiments to settle the
question.
To compare two models, one of which has fewer error degrees of freedom (i.e.,
more model degrees of freedom representing pathways) and a lower Chi-squared than the
other, NMC involves three steps. First, subtract the smaller number of degrees of freedom
from the larger number; second, subtract the smaller Chi-squared from the larger Chisquared. Third, locate the resulting Difference Chi-Squared (DCS) figure in a Chi-squared
table and determined its significance level. If the DCS is significant, the dropped
pathway(s) produced a significant loss of explanatory power. In other words, it is better to
leave those pathways intact. If the resulting DCS is not significant, the dropped pathway(s)
produce no significant loss of explanatory power. Hence, the more parsimonious is
preferable to the less parsimonious model.
The Measurement Model. We are interested in examining causal relations among
Negative Affect, Mating Effort, and Mate Value. To that end, we measured Negative Affect
using standardized measures of depression and anxiety. We measured Mating Effort using
three custom-designed measures: the Mate Retention Scale, Sexual Situations, and
Cumulative Sexual Frequency. We measured mate value using five forms of the Mate
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-380-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Value Inventory, Personal Mate Value, and both Realistic and Idealized versions of both
Long-Term and of Short-Term Partner Mate Value. In so doing, we created the following
measurement model: (1) Depression and Anxiety are indicators of the latent construct,
Negative Affect; and (2) The Mate Retention Scale, Sexual Situations, and Cumulative
Sexual Frequency are indicators of the latent construct, Mating Effort.
The Structural Models. We used a Structural Equations Model approach to examine
the relative explanatory power of two conceptually distinct sets of models. The first set
consisted of the initial structural model described above, which we numbered Model 1.0,
and two variants of it. The second set of models consisted of the reinterpreted model
described above, which we numbered Model 2.0, and two variants based on that
reinterpretation.
The first restricted model, Model 1.1, eliminated two of the causal pathways
proposed in Model 1.0: the pathways from Short-Term and Long-Term Partner Mate Value
to Mating Effort. Model 1.1, therefore, proposed a single direct causal pathway from
Negative Affect to Mating Effort.
The second restricted model, Model 1.2, eliminated the causal pathway from
Negative Affect to Mating Effort, but retained the causal pathways from Short-Term and
Long-Term Partner Mate Value to Mating Effort. Model 1.2, therefore, proposed two
indirect causal pathways from Negative Affect to Mating Effort.
The reinterpreted model, Model 2.0, replaced the causal pathway from Negative
Affect to Mating Effort with the LH Factor, a latent common factor representing LH
strategy. Model 2.0 also dropped the direct pathway from Negative Affect to Personal Mate
Value and, to explain the correlation between them, substituted a functionally equivalent
pathway from the LH Factor to Personal Mate Value. Model 2.0, unlike Models 1.0
through 1.2, specifies that the correlations between Negative Affect and Mating Effort, as
well as the correlations between Negative Affect and Personal Mate Value, are spuriously
produced by the latent LH Factor. Model 2.0 retained the causal pathways from both ShortTerm and Long-Term Partner Mate Value to Mating Effort.
As in Model 2.0, the first restricted variant, Model 2.1, retained the direct causal
pathways from the LH Factor to Negative Affect, Mating Effort, and Personal Mate Value
and removed the direct pathways from Negative Affect to both Mating Effort and Personal
Mate Value. Model 2.1 also retained the causal pathway from Long-Term Partner Mate
Value to Mating Effort, but dropped the causal pathway from Short-Term Partner Mate
Value to Mating Effort.
The second restricted variant of Model 2.0, Model 2.2, is identical to Model 2.1
except for having eliminated the causal pathway from Long-Term Partner Mate Value to
Mating Effort. This eliminated both of the pathways from Short-Term and Long-Term
Partner Mate Value to Mating Effort specified in Models 1.0 and 2.0.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Mate Value Inventory. The Cronbach’s alphas and standard deviations of the five
versions of the Mate Value Inventory reported here (see Table 1) were equivalent to those
described in Kirsner et al. (2003), Study 2.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-381-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Table 1. Psychometric properties of the Mate Value Inventory (MVI).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
MVI Form
Mean Score (SD)
N
Cronbach’s Alpha
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Personal
1.71 (0.69)
237
.83
Attainable STP
1.40 (0.91)
236
.92
Ideal STP
1.67 (0.80)
229
.90
Attainable LTP
2.07 (0.71)
238
.93
Ideal LTP
2.37 (0.56)
236
.91
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Notes. STP = Short-Term Partner, LTP = Long-Term Partner.
Depressive and Anxious Symptoms. Scores on the Trait form of the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory ranged from 24 to 72 (M = 45.86, SD = 9.94). Scores on the BDI-II
ranged from 0 to 48 (M = 14.50, SD = 9.44). Table 2 displays the frequency distributions of
BDI-II scores for the female and male participants. Due to oversampling, a large proportion
of both sexes exceeded thresholds generally accepted as indicating the presence of
depression.
Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) Scores by Sex.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
BDI-II Score
0-13
14-19
20-28
29-63
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Females
60
42
23
16
(42.6%)
(29.8%)
(16.3%)
(11.4%)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Males
60
17
13
10
(60.0%)
(17.0%)
(13.0%)
(10.0%)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Note. By research convention, a BDI-II score exceeding 13 indicates the presence of
depression (Beck, Steer, and Brown, 1996).
Multivariate Analyses
Goodness of Fit. Table 3 displays the Chi-squared, NFI, and CFI for the six tested
models. Each tested model showed a reasonably good fit to the data 1 . Table 4 displays the
hierarchically Nested Model Comparisons.
1
Model 1.2 may be rejected by a strict statistical (Chi-Squared) criterion.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-382-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Table 3. Statistical and practical fit indices for alternative structural equations models.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Alternative Models
Chi-Squared df
p(Ho) NFI CFI
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Model 1.0:
22.818
21
.354 .973 .998
Direct + Indirect Effects
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Restricted Model 1.1:
27.251
23
.245 .967 .995
Direct Effect Only
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Restricted Model 1.2:
33.933
22
.050 .959 .985
Indirect Effects Only
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reinterpreted Model 2.0:
21.825
20
.350 .974 .998
Spurious + 2 Indirect Effects
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reinterpreted Model 2.1:
22.831
21
.353 .973 .998
Spurious + 1 Indirect Effect
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reinterpreted Model 2.2:
27.208
22
.203 .968 .994
Spurious Effects Only
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Table 4. Hierarchically nested model comparisons.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Nested Model Comparisons
Chi-Squared df
p(Ho) NFI CFI
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Restricted 1.1 – Original 1.0:
4.433
2
.109 -.006 -.003
Direct Effect Only vs.
Direct + 2 Indirect Effects
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Restricted 1.2 – Original 1.0:
11.115*
1
.001 -.014 -.013
Indirect Effects Only vs.
Direct + 2 Indirect Effects
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reinterpreted 2.1 – Reinterpreted 2.0:
1.006
1
.306 -.001 .000
Spurious + 1 Indirect Effect vs.
Spurious + 2 Indirect Effects
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reinterpreted 2.2 – Reinterpreted 2.1:
4.377*
1
.036 -.005 -.004
Spurious vs.
Spurious + 1 Indirect Effect
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-383-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Comparisons against the Primary Theoretical Model. In this section, we compare
the goodness of fit of the primary theoretical model, Model 1.0, against variants of it,
seeking to determine the most explanatory, yet parsimonious, model among them. The
nested model comparison between Model 1.0 (Figure 1) and Model 1.1 (Figure 2)
examined the contribution of the two pathways from Long-Term and Short-Term Partner
Mate Value to Mating Effort. Model 1.1 gained two degrees of freedom by eliminating the
indirect pathways from Negative Affect to Mating Effort mediated by Personal Mate Value,
Long-Term Partner Mate Value and Short-Term Partner Mate Value. Dropping the direct
paths from Long-Term Partner Mate Value and Short-Term Partner Mate Value to Mating
Effort eliminated these indirect pathways. The difference Chi-squared was not statistically
significant, Χ 2 (2) = 4.433, p = .109, indicating no loss of explanatory power when the
indirect pathways were dropped. Hence, we prefer Model 1.1 because it is as powerful as,
but more parsimonious than, Model 1.0.
Figure 2. Restricted model (1.1).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Negative
Affect
.94
Mating
Effort
.22
.84
.62
-.48
Anxiety
Depression
Personal
Mate
Value
.71
Cumulative
Sexual
Frequency
Long-term
Partner
Mate Value
.97
.12
.51
.45
Sexual
.16
Sex
.23
Short-term
Partner
Mate Value
All path coefficients are significant at p < .05.
Χ 2 (23) = 27.251, p = .245
Situations
.79
Mate
Retention
Scale
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The nested model comparison between Models 1.0 and 1.2 examined the
contributions of the direct pathway between Negative Affect and Mating Effort. Model 1.2
gained one degree of freedom by eliminating the direct pathway between Negative Affect
and Mating Effort. The difference Chi-squared for the comparison was statistically
significant, X 2 (1) = 11.115, p = .001, indicating a loss of explanatory power when the
direct pathway was dropped. Hence, we prefer Model 1.1 because it is more powerful than
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-384-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Model 1.2, and more parsimonious than either Model 1.0 or Model 1.2.
Comparisons against the Reinterpreted Theoretical Model. As described above,
Life History Theory suggests that a single latent construct, the LH Factor, directly affects
the level of Negative Affect, Mate Value, and Mating Effort, predicting that the observed
correlations among these three factors are spurious. We examine this assertion using Model
2.0. In contrast to Model 1.0, Model 2.0 adds pathways from the LH Factor to Negative
Affect, Mating Effort, and Personal Mate Value and eliminates the direct pathways from
Negative Affect to Mating Effort and from Negative Affect to Personal Mate Value.
Figure 3. Reinterpreted model (2.0).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-. 77
Negative
Affect
.94
Anxiety
-.35
K-Factor
Mating
Effort
.62
.84
Depression
-.17
Personal
Mate
Value
.62
.27
.71
Long-term
Partner
Mate Value
. 51
Cumulative
Sexual
Frequency
.09
.96
.45
.16
Sex
.22
Sexual
Short-term
Partner
Mate Value
Situations
.80
All path coefficients are significant at p < .05.
X 2 (20) = 21.825, p = .350
Mate
Retention
Scale
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The nested model comparison between Model 2.0 (Figure 3) and Model 2.1 (Figure
4) examined the contribution of the pathway from Short-Term Mate Value to Mating
Effort. Model 2.1 gained one degree of freedom by eliminating the indirect pathway from
the LH Factor to Mating Effort mediated by Personal Mate Value and Short-Term Partner
Mate Value. Dropping the direct path from Short-Term Partner Mate Value to Mating
Effort eliminated this indirect pathway. The difference Chi-squared was not statistically
significant, X 2 (1) = 0.790, p = .374, indicating no loss of explanatory power when this
indirect pathway was dropped. Hence, we prefer Model 2.1 to Model 2.0 because it is as
powerful as, but more parsimonious than, Model 2.0.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-385-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Figure 4. Restricted reinterpreted model (2.1).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-.75
Negative
Affect
.94
Anxiety
-.36
K-Factor
.64
.84
Depression
.16
Personal
Mate
Value
Mating
Effort
.62
.21
.71
Cumulative
Sexual
Frequency
Long-term
Partner
Mate Value
.51
.96
.45
.16
Sex
.22
Short-term
Partner Mate
Value
Sexual
Situations
.80
All path coefficients are significant at p < .05.
Χ 2 (21) = 22.831, p = .353
Mate
Retention
Scale
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The nested model comparison between Model 2.2 and Model 2.1 examined the
contribution of the pathway from Long-Term Partner Mate Value to Mating Effort. Model
2.2 gained one degree of freedom by eliminating the indirect pathway from the LH Factor
to Mating Effort mediated by Personal Mate Value and Long-Term Partner Mate Value.
Dropping the direct path from Long-Term Partner Mate Value to Mating Effort eliminated
this indirect pathway. The difference Chi-squared was statistically significant, X 2 (1) =
7.790, p =.0053, indicating a significant loss of explanatory power when this indirect
pathway was dropped. Hence, we prefer Model 2.1 because it provides a better fit to the
data than Model 2.2.
Comparing the Preferred Models. Comparing the explanatory power and fit indices
of the most powerful and parsimonious model based on evolutionary economic theory,
Model 1.1, to the most powerful and parsimonious model based on Life History Theory,
Model 2.1, permits us to compare these theoretically distinct models indirectly.2 When we
do so, we find that the models fit just about equally well by all statistical and practical
criteria. The squared multiple correlation for the Mating Effort construct, which was the
2
Because the preferred primary model, Model 1.1, and the preferred reinterpreted model,
Model 2.1, are not nested, we could not pit them against one another directly.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-386-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
primary endogenous variable of theoretical interest, was .046 for Model 1.1 and .103 for
Model 2.1. This comparison favors Model 2.1 somewhat by the more conventional
criterion of explanatory power.
Discussion
We used a structural equations model approach to examine the empirical
plausibility of hypothesized causal relations among Negative Affect, Mate Value, and
Mating Effort. Using these methods, we arrived at two equally parsimonious models,
Model 1.1 and Model 2.1. Model 2.1 was favored by a higher squared multiple correlation
for the Mating Effort construct, although it was not favored by any of the statistical and
practical criteria of model fit unique to structural equations modeling.
Both models measured three indicators of Mating Effort. Each indicator assessed a
slightly different aspect of behaviors in which people might engage for the purpose of
attracting a partner or keeping a partner from exiting an extant relationship. The majority of
the items contained in Sexual Situations (Appendix C) and the Mate Retention Scale
(Appendix D) might be labeled “Risky Mating Effort.” Cumulative Sexual Frequency and
Sexual Situations assessed the use of many potentially high-risk sexual tactics as
instruments to attract or retain a partner. The Mate Retention Scale assessed many high-risk
but non-sexual tactics as instruments to retain a partner. Of these self-reported sets of
tactics, both Model 1.1 and Model 2.1 identified Sexual Situations, how often one engages
in sexual behavior under 36 sampled social situations, as the strongest indicator of Mating
Effort. The very high loading of Mating Effort on Sexual Situations suggests that the
measure captures an essential aspect of efforts to attract and retain mates. This finding does
not diminish the importance of Cumulative Sexual Frequency or non-sexual mate retention
tactics, both of which show remarkably strong relationships to Mating Effort in Model 1.1
and Model 2.1. By both models, it appears that people willingly admit the instrumental use
of a wide variety of risky sexual and non-sexual tactics to attract or retain a partner.
The detrimental impact of using sexual, psychological, or physically violent
behaviors to manipulate one’s partner is obvious. Less obvious are the dangers to the
partner who uses those tactics, perhaps because of fears that his or her mate will defect. The
present study demonstrated that experiencing persistent Negative Affect is associated with
greater use of risky mate attraction and retention behaviors. Those behaviors include
having sex when fearing that your mate will leave if you do not, having sex even though a
partner refused to use protection, and agreeing to sexual behaviors you would rather not do
in order to keep the partner from leaving. Engaging in sex primarily for the purpose of
attracting or retaining a partner may thereby expose one to several possible dangers.
Clearly, having sex without using protection exposes both parties to the possibility of STD
transmission and pregnancy. The potential consequences of unsafe sex may increase the
anxiety experienced by people prone to anxious symptoms. Engaging in behaviors viewed
as unpleasant or undesirable, be they sexual or not, also maintains Negative Affect in
general (Grosscup and Lewinsohn, 1980); At a minimum, engaging in instrumental sex or
other manipulative behaviors is, for most of us, unpleasant for both the manipulator and the
manipulated.
Turning to the structural models, the primary theoretical model, Model 1.0, which is
based on evolutionary economic theory, predicted a set of causal pathways from Negative
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-387-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Affect to Personal Mate Value, from Personal Mate Value to Short and Long-Term Partner
Mate Value, and from both Short-Term and Long-Term Partner Mate Value to Mating
Effort. The best-fitting and most parsimonious models, Restricted Model 1.1 and
Reinterpreted Model 2.1, disconfirmed this prediction.
Model 1.1 specified a direct effect, from Negative Affect to Mate Retention Efforts;
but no indirect effect, whereas in Model 2.1, which is based on LH Theory, the indirect
effect from the LH Factor to Mating Effort via Personal Mate Value and Long-Term
Partner Mate Value was at best negligible. Whether Negative Affect is seen as the ultimate
cause, or as an indicator of an underlying “fast” life history strategy, these findings imply
that greater Negative Affect is associated with: (1) a lower threshold for accepting a either a
short- or long-term partner; and (2) greater effort to attract or retain a partner. In short,
Negative Affect is associated with exerting increased sexual efforts that produce fewer
benefits in reproductive fitness.
Although there was very little mathematical basis on which to decide between
Models 1.1 and 2.1 based on the current cross-sectional, correlational data, we can do so
experimentally. Each model predicts a unique set of relations among measures of Negative
Affect, Personal Mate Value, and Mating Effort. For example, Model 1.1 predicts that
changes in Negative Affect will produce large and easily detected changes in a person’s
estimated Personal Mate Value and less easily detected changes in Mating Effort through
direct causal links (see Figure 2). To be more specific, Model 1.1 predicts that significant
increases in Negative Affect will cause large decreases in Personal Mate Value and smaller
but detectable increases in Cumulative Sexual Frequency, Sexual Situations, and Mate
Retention tactics, the three indicators of Mating Effort. In contrast, Model 2.1 predicts that
changes in Negative Affect will produce no changes in a person’s estimated Personal Mate
Value or Mating Effort. That is, any empirically observed relations among Negative Affect,
Personal Mate Value, and Mating Effort will be mediated by the common causal influence
of the LH Factor. A simple power analysis indicates that the data patterns predicted by
Model 1.1 can be detected, with a standardized regression weight of 0.85, by taking
appropriate measures from 102 participants. Hence, a study taking appropriate measures
from about 100 participants should provide a critical test of the unique set of predictions
generated by Models 1.1 and 2.1. Such a study is now in progress.
By either account, the explanatory power and fit of the preferred Models 1.1 and 2.1
pose a serious challenge to the predictive power of evolutionary economic theory. By
Model 1.1, there is no indirect effect of Negative Affect on Mating Effort; thus, the expected
lower mate value of partners of those with greater Negative Affect is not predicted to lower
the effort expended to attract or retain them. By Model 2.1, the correlations between
Negative Affect and Mating Effort and between Negative Affect and Personal Mate Value
are both spurious. Both models thereby contradict basic tenets of evolutionary economic
theory.
Summary
The present study examined relations among Negative Affect, Mate Value, and
Mating Effort. An a priori model (Model 1.0), based on evolutionary economic theory,
predicted that Negative Affect simultaneously increases Mating Effort directly, and
decreases it indirectly by reducing the expected mate value of one’s partner. The present
results support the first and disconfirm the second prediction. Two alternative models,
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-388-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Model 1.1, based on evolutionary economic theory, and Model 2.1, based on Life History
Theory, described the data almost equally well. These models, however, predict different
suites of behavior in the face of changing levels of Negative Affect. Model 1.1 predicts a
dramatic change in Personal Mate Value and a less dramatic but detectable change in
Mating Effort when Negative Affect changes. In contrast, Model 2.1 predicts that both
Personal Mate Value and Mating Effort will remain stable when Negative Affect changes.
Although we briefly discuss several pragmatic implications of these models, we stress the
theoretical importance of examining the empirical veracity of these models carefully.
Received 3 January 2009; Revision submitted 26 May 2009; Accepted 1 July 2009
References
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., and Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression
Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American
undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291-317.
Buss, D. M., and Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary
perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Converse, J., Jr., and Foa, U. G. (1993). Some principles of equity in interpersonal
exchanges. In U.G. Foa and J. Converse, Jr. (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations
and applications (pp. 31-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H.
Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture (pp.163-228). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dozois, D. J. A., Dobson, K. S., and Ahnberg, J. L. (1998). A psychometric evaluation of
the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Assessment, 10, 83-89.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1970). Ethology: The biology of behavior. Oxford, England: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., and Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental
dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable
environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human
Nature, 20, 204-268.
Figueredo, A. J. (2007). A cross-cultural study of assortative pairing for sensational
interests, mate value, life history, and delinquency [Abstract]. Revista Mexicana de
Psicología, Número Especial: XV Congreso Mexicano de Psicología, 6.
Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., Jones, D. N., Sefcek, J. A., Vásquez, G., and Jacobs, W.
J. (2007a). Ecological constraints on mating tactics. In G. Geher and G. F. Miller
(Eds.), Mating Intelligence: Sex, Relationships and the Mind's Reproductive System
(pp. 335-361). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., and Jones, D. N. (2006a). The ideal romantic partner
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 431-441.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., and Schneider, S. M. R. (2004). The
heritability of life history strategy: The K-factor, covitality, and personality. Social
Biology, 51, 121-143.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-389-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., and Schneider, S. M. R. (2007b). The Kfactor, covitality, and personality: A psychometric test of life history theory. Human
Nature, 18, 47-73.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M. R., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I.
R., Hill, D., Wenner, C. J., and Jacobs, W. J. (2006b). Consilience and life history
theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26,
243-275.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Sefcek, J. A., Kirsner, B. R., and Jacobs,
W. J., (2005). The K-Factor: Individual differences in life history strategy.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1349-1360.
Figueredo, A. J., and Wolf, P. S. A. (2009). Assortative pairing and life history strategy: A
cross-cultural study. Human Nature, in press.
Gangestad, S. W., and Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Tradeoffs
and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 473-644.
Grosscup, S. J., and Lewinsohn, P. M. (1980). Unpleasant and pleasant events, and mood.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 252-259.
Huston, T. L., and Burgess, R. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships: An
overview. In R. L. Burgess and T. L. Hustorn (Eds.), Social exchange in developing
relationships (pp. 3-28). New York: Academic Press.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., and Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models,
and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Johnson, J. E., Aikman, K. G., Danner, C. C., and Elling, K. A. (1995). Attributions of shy
persons in romantic relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 532-536.
Kelly, H. H., and Thibaut, J. E. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of
interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., and Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of
Personality, 58, 97-116.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., et al. (2005). Lifetime
prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National
Comorbidity Survey Replication [published correction appears in Archives of
General Psychiatry, 62, 768]. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593-602.
Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., and Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers:
Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate
values. Journal of Affective Disorders, 75, 131-148.
Lesure-Lester, G. E. (2001). Dating competence, social assertion and social anxiety among
college students. College Student Journal, 35, 317-320.
MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McNeill, K. F., Rienzi, B. M., Butler, M. A., and Doty, M. L. (1996). College students’
attitudes toward finding a mate to escape depression: Sex differences.
Psychological Reports, 79, 745-746.
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human
nature. New York: Doubleday.
Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., and Figueredo, A. J. (1997). Mating effort in adolescence:
Conditional or alternative strategy? Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-390-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
105-115.
Sanders, S. A., and Reinisch, J. M. (1999). Would you say you “had sex” if …? JAMA,
281, 275-277.
Sefcek, J. A. (2007). A life-history model of human fitness indicators. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Smith, H. M., and Betz, N. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of perceived
social self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 283-301.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., and Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Thibaut, J., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Wenner, C. (2009). Profiling approaches to life and employment. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitraitmultimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-26.
Yuen, K. S. L., and Lee, T. M. C. (2003). Could mood state affect risk-taking decisions?
Journal of Affective Disorders, 75, 11-18.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-391-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Appendix A: Had Sex Questionnaire
The following questionnaire was based on Sanders and Reinisch (1999).
Would you say you “had sex” with someone if the most intimate behavior you engaged in
was...?
1. Deep kissing
2. Person touches your breasts/nipples
3. You touch other’s breasts/nipples
4. Oral contact on your breasts/nipples
5. Oral contact on other’s breasts/nipples
6. You touch other’s genitals
7. Person touches your genitals
8. Oral contact with other’s genitals
9. Oral contact with your genitals
10. Penile-anal intercourse
11. Penile-vaginal intercourse
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
According to your definition of having “had sex” above, at what age did you first “have
sex”?
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-392-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Appendix B: Cumulative Sexual Frequency
Please answer the questions based on how you defined “having sex” (see Had Sex
questionnaire in Appendix A).
If you have never “had sex” according to your definition, please skip this and the next page.
If you have ever had consensual sex in your life, please answer the following:
I have had consensual sex with men approximately _____ time(s) in my lifetime, with
approximately _____ different partners.
I have had consensual sex with women approximately _____ time(s) in my lifetime, with
approximately _____ different partners.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-393-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Appendix C: Sexual Situations
The following questionnaire was based on taxonomic work reported by Figueredo et al.
(2007a).
Based on how you defined “having sex” (see Had Sex Questionnaire in Appendix A),
please answer the following. If you have never “had sex” according to your definition,
please skip this and the next page.
About how many times have you done these things in the past year?
(Note: Please use a number, not words, to answer this question.)
I have had sex with someone when I wanted their attention.
I have had sex with someone when they were drunk or high.
I have had sex with someone when I thought it would keep them from breaking up with me.
I have had sex with someone when I felt good about having sex.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted affection.
I have had sex with someone when I thought I would lose them if I didn’t.
I have had consensual sex with someone when they refused to use protection.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to get revenge on someone else.
I have had sex with someone when I specifically decided beforehand that I would not do
so.
I have had sex with someone when I was uncomfortable saying no.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to get pregnant/to get my partner pregnant.
I have had sex with someone when I drank more than I intended.
I have had sex when it seemed like the easiest thing to do under the circumstances.
I have been sexually unfaithful to a romantic partner.
I have had sex with someone to help me stop feeling lonely.
I have had sex with someone after we ended a romantic relationship with each other.
I have had sex with someone when I felt obligated after my partner became excited.
I have had sex when I felt anxiety about what I should do.
I have had sex with someone when I thought they would enjoy it even though I might not.
I have had sex with someone when I thought they expected me to.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to avoid having to do something else with
them.
I have had make-up sex with someone after an argument or verbal fight with them.
I have had sex with someone when I thought they would leave me if I didn’t.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to release sexual tension.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to get something from them.
I have had sex with someone when I was drunk or high.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to get rid of a bad mood I was in.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to make myself feel attractive.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to feel good.
I have had sex with someone when I felt obliged after they spent a lot of money on me.
I have had sex with someone when I thought my partner would be unsatisfied otherwise.
I have had sex with someone I was not in a committed relationship with.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-394-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
I have had make-up sex with someone after a fight in which one of us physically hurt the
other.
I have had sex with someone when they would not take no for an answer.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to feel close to them.
I have had sex with someone when I wanted to get them interested in me.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-395-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
Appendix D: Mate Retention Scale
Past year:
In the past year, how many romantic/sexual partners have you been involved with? ______
In the past year, how many times have you gone through what you consider a break-up?
______
If you have answered 0 to both of these questions, please skip this and the next page.
In the past year, about how many times did these things happen?
(Note: Please use a number, not words, to answer this question.)
1a. I insisted that my partner spend his or her free time with me
1b. My partner insisted that I spend my free time with him/her
2a. I did not let my partner go out without me
2b. My partner did not let me go out without him/her
3a. I became angry when my partner flirted with someone else
3b. My partner became angry when I flirted with someone else
4a. I made my partner feel guilty about talking to other girls/guys
4b. My partner made me feel guilty about talking to other girls/guys
5a. I pleaded with my partner not to leave me
5b. My partner pleaded with me not to leave him/her
6a. I threatened to hurt myself if my partner left me
6b. My partner threatened to hurt himself/herself if I left him/her
7a. I made my partner feel badly about her/his chances of finding another partner
7b. My partner made me feel badly about my chances of finding another partner
8a. I intentionally or unintentionally put my partner down to his or her face
8b. Intentionally or unintentionally my partner put me down to my face
9a. I intentionally or unintentionally put my partner down to others
9b. Intentionally or unintentionally my partner put me down to others
10a. I offered to be more committed to my partner
10b. My partner offered to be more committed to me
11a. I gave my partner presents I could not easily afford to give
11b. My partner gave me presents he/she could not easily afford to give
12a. I prepared or took my partner out for a romantic meal
12b. My partner prepared or took me out for a romantic meal
13a. I gave in to my partner’s sexual requests
13b. My partner gave in to my sexual requests
14a. I expressed more enthusiasm about sex than I really felt at the time
14b. I think my partner expressed more enthusiasm about sex than he/she really felt
15a. I did something my partner asked even though I did not really want to
15b. My partner did something I asked even though he/she did not really want to
16a. I went along with my partner’s opinions even though I did not agree with them
16b. I think my partner went along with my opinions even though he/she did not agree
17a. I told my partner he/she would never find anyone as good as me if they left me
17b. My partner told me I would never find anyone as good as him/her if I left him/her
18a. I threatened to do something to hurt my partner if he or she left me
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
-396-
Negative Affect, Mate Value, Mating Effort
18b. My partner threatened to do something to hurt me if I left him/her
19a. I flirted with someone other than my current partner when my partner was present
19b. My partner flirted with someone other than me when I was present
20a. FEMALES: I may have, or did, get pregnant
20b. MALES: I may have, or did, impregnate a woman
Prior to Past Year:
Before the past year, how many romantic/sexual partners were you involved with? ____
Before the past year, how many times did you go through what you consider a break-up?
____
If you have answered 0 to both of these questions, please skip this and the next page.
Before the past year, about how many times did these things happen?
(Note: Please use a number, not words, to answer this question.)
The same items were administered for the time frame Prior to Past Year as for Past Year.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(3). 2009.
View publication stats
-397-