Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evolution and Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.ehbonline.org

Original Article

Disgust and mating strategy

Laith Al-Shawaf a,⁎, David M.G. Lewis b, David M. Buss a
a
Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A8000, Austin, TX 78712, USA
b
Department of Psychology, Bilkent University, 06800 Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An evolutionary task analysis predicts a connection between disgust and human mating, two important but
Initial receipt 3 April 2014 currently disconnected areas of psychology. Because short-term mating strategies involve sex with multiple
Final revision received 6 November 2014 partners after brief temporal durations, such a strategy should be difficult to pursue in conjunction with high
Available online xxxx
levels of sexual disgust. On this basis, we hypothesized that individuals with a stronger proclivity for short-
term mating would exhibit dispositionally lower levels of sexual disgust. Two independent studies provided
Keywords:
Disgust
strong support for this hypothesis: among both men and women, an orientation toward short-term mating
Human mating was associated with reduced levels of sexual disgust, but not with suppressed moral or pathogen disgust. Our
Sexual behavior discussion highlights an unexpected finding and suggests important questions for future research.
Mating strategies © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
SOI
Physical attractiveness

1. Introduction research, but have focused almost exclusively on immediate, state-level

disgust and state-level sexual arousal.
Research programs on the emotion of disgust and the psychology of This paper seeks to complement this emphasis and fill this research
mating have produced a wealth of empirical findings relevant to the gap by investigating the relationship between dispositional, trait-level
study of cognition, emotion, individual differences, social relationships, aspects of disgust and human mating. This report provides a cogent
and sexual behavior (Al-Shawaf & Lewis, 2013; Angyal, 1941; Buss, theoretical rationale for an important link between these domains,
2003, 2012; Curtis, de Barra, & Aunger, 2011; Fleischman & Fessler, advances a novel hypothesis about the relationship these two aspects of
2011; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994; human psychology, and supports the hypothesized connection with two
Navarrete & Fessler, 2006; Rozin & Fallon, 1987; Schaller, Miller, Gervais, independent studies.
Yager, & Chen, 2010; Tybur, Lieberman, Kurzban, & DeScioli, 2012). Early research by Haidt and colleagues made groundbreaking strides
Despite successes in the fields of disgust and mating, these domains of in studying the emotion of disgust, its elicitors, and individual differences
research remain largely disconnected (for exceptions, see Borg & de in its thresholds, as well as constructing a scale with which to measure the
Jong, 2012; Fleischman, 2014; Lee, Dubbs, Von Hippel, Brooks, & Zietsch, emotion (Haidt et al., 1994; Rozin & Fallon, 1987). However, this impor-
2014; Tybur & Gangestad, 2011). tant foundational work presented a statistically and conceptually
Extant research on the relationship between disgust and mating has problematic analysis of the different types of disgust, most notably by
made valuable contributions to understanding the relationship between arguing for the existence of a subtype of disgust called “animal reminder”
disgust and the temporary state of sexual arousal (e.g. de Jong, van disgust (Haidt et al., 1994; for thorough discussions of the limitations of
Overveld, & Borg, 2013; Fleischman, 2014; Stevenson, Case, & Oaten, the Disgust Scale, see Al-Shawaf & Lewis, 2013; Fessler & Navarrete,
2011). This research has shown, for example, that sexually aroused indi- 2005; Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009, Tybur et al., 2012).
viduals experience temporarily suppressed disgust in response to other- Recent research has identified three distinct types of disgust that are
wise sexually repellent stimuli (Stevenson et al., 2011); that sexual demarcated along different lines: pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust
arousal increases reported willingness to engage in sexual behaviors (Tybur et al., 2009, 2012). These forms of disgust are differentiated by
that might otherwise be disgusting (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2006), and the cues that elicit them, the behaviors that they motivate, and their
that sexually aroused women are less disgusted by, and less avoidant distinct profiles of correlations with other psychological variables
of, typically disgust-inducing stimuli and tasks (Borg & de Jong, 2012). (Tybur et al., 2012). In this paper, we focus on sexual disgust, an emo-
These studies have made important contributions to arousal and disgust tion that has been hypothesized to "reduce participation in biologically
suboptimal sexual behaviors" (Fessler & Navarrete, 2003, p. 406).
These pioneering researchers have emphasized this emotion's
function in preventing individuals from making injudicious mating
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 547 7735. decisions with unsuitable sexual partners (Fessler & Navarrete, 2003;
E-mail address: laith.alshawaf@mail.utexas.edu (L. Al-Shawaf). Tybur et al., 2012). Here, we further elaborate this valuable idea by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.003
1090-5138/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Al-Shawaf, L., et al., Disgust and mating strategy, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2014.11.003
2 L. Al-Shawaf et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

showing how this emotion may be adaptively calibrated in the opposite mating strategies (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990, 2000). Nonetheless,
direction; sexual disgust may be strategically and functionally down- abundant empirical evidence from dozens of data sources shows that
regulated to facilitate the successful pursuit of mating. short-term mating looms larger in men's than in women's mating psy-
chology (Buss, 2012; Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and is pursued more vigor-
1.1. Mating strategy and sexual disgust ously by men (Lippa, 2009).
Because physical attractiveness is desirable in a mate (Sugiyama,
Individuals vary in mating strategy—their disposition toward long- 2005; Symons, 1979, 1995) and enhances one's mate value (Buss,
term, committed mateships versus short-term, uncommitted mateships 2003), physically attractive individuals should be better able to imple-
(Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 1990, 2000). Different ment their preferred mating strategy. And because successful short-
mating strategies present distinct adaptive challenges, which in turn term mating strategies were more reproductively beneficial for men
lead to the evolution of strategy-specific psychological and behavioral than women during human evolution (Buss, 2003; Symons, 1979), evo-
solutions. A task analysis (Marr, 1982) of these distinct challenges lutionary reasoning suggests that physical attractiveness should lead
identifies the problems individuals must solve to successfully men—but not women—to pursue uncommitted mating.
implement different mating strategies and leads to hypotheses about Researchers have shown that in men, but not women, physical
the psychological solutions that could have evolved to solve these attractiveness and related indices such as fluctuating asymmetry
adaptive problems. predict number of sex partners, number of affair partners, and
Successful short-term mating strategies typically involve multi- other measures of short-term mating (Gangestad & Simpson,
ple sex partners, desire for sexual variety, and brief intervals of 2000; Rhodes et al., 2005). This pattern is mirrored in other species:
time before sexual intercourse (Buss, 2012). This strategy should more attractive male birds devote less effort to parenting when
be difficult to implement in the presence of high levels of sexual they can translate their physical attractiveness into extra-pair cop-
disgust: individuals with high levels of sexual disgust are less likely ulations (Johnsen, Delhey, Schlicht, Peters, & Kempenaers, 2005;
to be comfortable with casual sex, multiple partners, and sex that Møller, 1994; Møller & Thornhill, 1998).
occurs before sufficient information can be acquired about the health Precisely how physical attractiveness leads to larger numbers of
and hygiene status of potential mates. Consequently, we propose short-term mates remains unknown, however. Extant findings link
that a crucial component of a successful short-term mating physical attractiveness to behavioral outcomes such as number of
strategy is the downregulation of sexual disgust sensitivity. On this sex partners, but have not assessed whether physically attractive
hypothesis, suppressed levels of sexual disgust may be a previously men experience greater activation of underlying short-term mating
undiscovered design feature of short-term mating strategies. psychology. The link between physical attractiveness and mating
In contrast, down-regulated sexual disgust is not necessary for the could, in principle, occur via a change in behavior alone or via a
successful pursuit of a monogamous strategy. In fact, higher levels of shift in both behavior and psychology. Consequently, we sought to
sexual disgust may facilitate the implementation of committed mating replicate this link between male physical attractiveness and short-
strategies by inhibiting short-term mating and deterring those in term mating and investigate whether it applies to underlying
committed relationships from sexual infidelity. psychology as well as manifest behavior.
This reasoning suggests that sexual disgust should be dispositionally
lower among individuals pursuing a short-term mating strategy relative 1.3. The current study
to those pursuing committed mating. We therefore hypothesized that
mating strategy calibrates sexual disgust. Specifically, we predicted We propose a two-step process in which physical attractiveness cal-
that a stronger disposition toward short-term mating is associated ibrates mating strategy and mating strategy calibrates sexual disgust.
with reduced sexual disgust sensitivity. The first part of this model is sex-differentiated, with physical attrac-
tiveness leading to uncommitted mating in men but not women. The
1.2. Mating strategy and physical attractiveness second part of this model posits the same relationship for both sexes,
with a disposition toward short-term mating leading to reduced levels
This task analysis suggests a link between mating strategy and sexual of sexual disgust sensitivity in both men and women.
disgust, but leaves a different question unanswered: Why do some
individuals exhibit a stronger orientation toward short-term mating 2. Study 1
than others? Theory and research suggest that the answer lies partly in
individual differences in physical attractiveness (Gangestad & Simpson, 2.1. Methods
2000; Rhodes, Simmons, & Peters, 2005).
Women shoulder the greater minimum obligatory investment in 2.1.1. Participants and procedure
offspring and thereby incur more severe costs from injudicious One hundred forty-four women and 103 men (Mage = 19.49 years,
mating decisions (Trivers, 1972). Consequently, women have SDage = 2.56, age range = 18–51) were recruited from the psychology
evolved more discriminating mate preferences (Buss, 2003; Trivers, subject pool at The University of Texas at Austin. Participants arrived at
1972). This sex difference in choosiness is particularly pronounced the laboratory, provided informed consent to participate in the study,
in the context of short-term mating, which carries greater potential and were escorted by a researcher to a private room where they complet-
costs for women than for men (Symons, 1979; Trivers, 1972). For ed an online survey hosted by Qualtrics. Participants received partial
example, women face the potential of a costly nine-month pregnancy course credit for their participation and were debriefed upon completion.
(Trivers, 1972), are at greater risk of contracting sexually transmitted
diseases, and suffer more severe reproductive consequences as a result 2.1.2. Measures
of these diseases (National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, As part of a larger study on individual differences in disgust sensitivity,
and TB Prevention, 2011). participants completed a set of inventories designed to measure mating
A female-biased sex difference in the costs of short-term mating is strategy, physical attractiveness, and disgust.
mirrored by a male-biased sex difference in the benefits: ancestrally,
success in short-term mating paid greater fitness dividends to men 2.1.2.1. Mating strategy. We operationalized mating strategy with the
than to women. A large body of research demonstrates that both sexes Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf,
share a complex repertoire of evolved mating strategies (Buss & 2008). This enabled us to measure both psychological and behavioral
Schmitt, 1993), and that there is substantial within-sex variability in facets of short-term mating; the SOI-R is a nine-item measure of an

Please cite this article as: Al-Shawaf, L., et al., Disgust and mating strategy, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2014.11.003
 L. Al-Shawaf et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

individual's behavioral, cognitive, and attitudinal disposition toward Table 1

uncommitted sexual relations. Sample items include “With how many Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for the sex difference in study 1.

different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?” Disgust subscale (TDDS) Men mean (SD) Women mean (SD) Cohen's d
(behavior), “How often do you experience sexual arousal when you Sexual 22.85 (8.57) 35.53 (7.90) 1.54⁎⁎⁎
are in contact with someone you are not in a committed romantic rela- Moral 32.89 (9.43) 34.50 (8.81) .18
tionship with?” (desire), and “I can imagine myself being comfortable Pathogen 32.99 (7.28) 36.17 (7.41) .43⁎⁎
and enjoying ‘casual’ sex with different partners” (attitude). Inventory Mating Strategy (SOI-R)
Sociosexual orientation 38.80 (14.59) 23.76 (11.30) 1.15⁎⁎⁎
items are summed to form a composite SOI-R score, with higher scores
reflecting a stronger disposition toward short-term mating. *p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
2.1.2.2. Physical attractiveness. We assessed participants' physical
attractiveness with the International Personality Item Pool physical
attractiveness scale (Goldberg et al., 2006). We elected to use this self- (e.g., Al-Shawaf & Lewis, 2013; Curtis, Aunger, & Rabie, 2004; Haidt
report measure because individuals have direct access to self- et al., 1994; Fessler, Pillsworth, & Flamson, 2004; Tybur et al., 2009).
represented attractiveness, but not “objective” ratings of attractiveness.
The information-processing mechanisms responsible for calibrating 2.2.2. Mating strategy and sexual disgust
mating strategy are therefore expected to operate on self-represented Our primary hypothesis suggests that short-term mating should be
attractiveness, an internal regulatory variable whose value is likely associated with reduced levels of sexual disgust in both sexes. As pre-
based on multiple sources of information across time (for a discussion dicted, short-term mating was inversely related to sexual disgust, and
of internal regulatory variables, see Lieberman, Tooby, & Cosmides, this effect was independent of sex [men: r(97) = − .44, p b .001;
2007; Tooby, Cosmides, Sell, Lieberman, & Sznycer, 2008). Sample women: r(136) = −.46, p b .001; sex*SOI-R interaction: β = −.109, t
items on the nine-item Likert-type scale include “Have a pleasing (233) = −.74, ns.] (Fig. 1, top panel).
physique” and “Attract attention from the opposite sex.” Moreover, this relationship between mating strategy and disgust
was specific to the sexual domain; mating strategy was not associated
2.1.2.3. Disgust. We measured disgust with the Three Domain Disgust with individual differences in moral disgust [men: r(96) = − .07, ns;
Scale (TDDS), a 21-item instrument composed of three seven-item sub- women: r(134) = −.12, ns] or pathogen disgust [men: r(97) = −.01,
scales designed to assess pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust (Tybur ns; women: r(135) = −.16, ns].
et al., 2009). The TDDS asks participants to rate how disgusting they To ensure that the relationship between mating strategy and sexual
find a variety of potentially repellent situations on a 7-point Likert- disgust was not merely due to content overlap between the instruments
type scale (0 = not at all disgusting, 6 = extremely disgusting). Sample measuring the two constructs, we re-ran the same analyses after re-
items from the sexual disgust subscale include “A stranger of the moving items of potential overlap from the sexual disgust scale
opposite sex intentionally rubbing your thigh in an elevator” and
“Performing oral sex.”
We measured all three forms of disgust to determine whether the
proposed link between mating strategy and disgust is specific to the
sexual domain or permeates other facets of disgust as well. Although
our central hypothesis is consistent with either outcome, our a priori
reasoning pertains specifically to sexual disgust. Demonstrating the
specificity of the link between mating strategy and sexual disgust
would therefore provide more discriminating empirical support for
the rationale underlying our hypothesis.

2.2. Results

We tested study hypotheses with two different analytic methods.

First, zero-order correlations and regression analyses were used to test
the predicted relationships between (i) physical attractiveness and
mating strategy and (ii) mating strategy and sexual disgust. Second,
we conducted exploratory path analyses in which we investigated the
possibility of an indirect effect of physical attractiveness on sexual dis-
gust via mating strategy.

2.2.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for the three disgust
scales (Cronbach's α: moral = .87, sexual = .86, pathogen = .80) and
the sociosexual orientation inventory (α = .68).
Sex differences in disgust followed a similar pattern to those report-
ed by Tybur and colleagues (2009, 2012). Consistent with previous re-
search, women in the current study exhibited stronger pathogen
disgust [t(241) = − 3.31, p b .001] and sexual disgust [t(245) =
−11.99, p b .001]. Whereas Tybur and coworkers (2009, 2011) found
stronger female disgust in all three domains, the effect for moral disgust
did not reach significance in the current study [t(242) = − 1.37, ns].
More broadly, these findings replicate the reliable sex difference Fig. 1. Mating strategy predicts disgust. Lines represent model-predicted values. Short-
demonstrated in much of the disgust literature over the last several de- term mating is inversely related to sexual disgust in both men (dashed line) and
cades: women exhibit significantly higher levels of disgust than men women (solid line).

Please cite this article as: Al-Shawaf, L., et al., Disgust and mating strategy, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2014.11.003
4 L. Al-Shawaf et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

(specifically, items 11, 14, and 17 of the TDDS). Short-term mating was 3. Study 2
still inversely related to sexual disgust [men: r(97) = − .34, p b .001,
women: r(136) = −.29, p b .001], and this effect was still independent To provide a more stringent test of our hypotheses, we subjected
of sex [sex*SOI-R interaction: β = −.028, t(233) = −.16, ns]. The fact our findings to a reproducibility test in a second study with an inde-
that these analyses yielded the same substantive results, without excep- pendent sample.
tion, unambiguously indicates that the relationship between mating
strategy and sexual disgust is not an artifact of instrument overlap. 3.1. Method

Two hundred and three women and eighty men (Mage = 18.89 years,
2.2.3. Mating strategy and physical attractiveness SDage = 2.81, age range = 18–50) were recruited from the psychology
Our secondary hypothesis was that physical attractiveness would be subject pool at The University of Texas at Austin. One participant did
associated with short-term mating disposition among men but not not indicate his/her gender and was therefore excluded from analyses.
women. Regression analyses supported this hypothesis: physical attrac- Participants received partial course credit for participation, and complet-
tiveness and sex interacted to predict individuals' SOI scores, β = ed the same set of materials as those described in study 1.
−.657, t(228) = −2.189, p = .03. As predicted, men's inclination toward
short-term mating correlated positively with their physical attractiveness,
r(95) = .25, p = .01, whereas women's physical attractiveness was not 3.2. Results
associated with the pursuit of short-term mating, r(133) = .00, ns.
3.2.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for the three disgust
2.2.4. Physical attractiveness – N mating strategy – N sexual disgust scales (Cronbach's α: moral = 0.86, sexual = 0.88, pathogen = 0.83)
The links observed between a) men's attractiveness and mating and the sociosexual orientation inventory (α: 0.65). Sex differences in
strategy, and b) men's mating strategy and sexual disgust, raise the disgust were similar to those obtained in study 1 and in Tybur et al.'s
question: is there an indirect link between men's physical attractive- seminal studies, with women exceeding men in all three domains of dis-
ness and sexual disgust via mating strategy? To answer this question, gust [moral: t(277) = − 2.55, p b .05, pathogen: t(277) = − 4.73,
we used a path analysis to model the indirect pathway from p b .001, sexual: t(278) = −11.00, p b .001].
men's attractiveness to sexual disgust through mating strategy
(Mplus, version 7). 3.2.2. Mating strategy and sexual disgust
Modeling this relationship revealed an indirect path from men's Replicating study 1's findings and providing strong confirmatory ev-
physical attractiveness to their sexual disgust via mating strategy, β = idence for our primary hypothesis, short-term mating was associated
− .12, SE = .05, p = .02 (Fig. 2). Among women, on the other hand, with down-regulated sexual disgust [men: r(76) = − .51, p b .001;
there was no indirect path from physical attractiveness to sexual dis- women: r(190) = −.61, p b .001], and this effect was independent of
gust, β = .00, SE = .04, ns, consistent with the absence of a relationship sex; sex*SOI-R interaction: β = − .174, t(266) = − 1.151, ns (Fig. 1,
between women's physical attractiveness and mating strategy. bottom panel).

Fig. 2. Mating strategy-mediated link between physical attractiveness and sexual disgust.

Please cite this article as: Al-Shawaf, L., et al., Disgust and mating strategy, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2014.11.003
 L. Al-Shawaf et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

Table 2 Table 4
Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for the sex difference in study 2. Correlations between women's physical attractiveness and short-term mating.

Disgust subscale (TDDS) Men mean (SD) Women mean (SD) Cohen's d Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R) Study 1 Study 2

Sexual 23.76 (9.91) 37.05 (8.79) 1.42⁎⁎⁎ Behavior .20⁎ .24⁎⁎

Moral 32.17 (10.05) 35.19 (8.42) .33⁎ Attitude −.08 .13
Pathogen 31.96 (8.49) 36.92 (7.61) .62⁎⁎⁎ Desire .01 .07
Mating strategy (SOI-R) Overall .00 .15⁎
Sociosexual orientation 38.14 (14.71) 23.12 (12.48) 1.10⁎⁎⁎
⁎ p b .05.
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
4. Discussion

As in study 1, the link between mating strategy and disgust was spe- 4.1. Mating strategy and sexual disgust
cific to the sexual domain. Among both men and women, short-term mat-
ing was not associated with moral disgust [men: r(75) = .01, ns; women: Our primary hypothesis was that a stronger disposition toward
r(191) = −.11, ns] or pathogen disgust [men: r(74) = .02, ns; women: r short-term mating would be associated with reduced sexual disgust
(191) = −.11, ns]. sensitivity among both men and women. This hypothesis received
As in study 1, we re-ran these analyses to ensure that the relation- strong support. In both studies, an orientation toward short-term mat-
ship between mating strategy and sexual disgust was not merely due ing was associated with suppressed sexual disgust, but not with patho-
to instrument overlap. We again found the same substantive results, gen or moral disgust. This relationship held across independent
without exception. Short-term mating was inversely related to sexual samples, was robust to substantial modifications of the sexual disgust
disgust [men: r(76) = − .48, p b .001, women: r(190) = − .56, scale, and was true for both sexes. This provides solid support for our
p b .001], and this effect was again independent of sex [sex*SOI-R inter- a priori hypothesis that individuals dispositionally oriented toward
action: β = −.266, t(266) = −1.573, ns]. short-term mating have stably reduced levels of sexual disgust.
In sum, across four possible analyses (two independent studies, each Existing research has revealed a connection between state-level sex-
analyzed using both the original scales and the scales after removing ual arousal and disgust (e.g., Ariely & Loewenstein, 2006; de Jong et al.,
items of potentially overlapping content), we found the same substan- 2013; Fleischman, 2014; Stevenson et al., 2011), but this study is the
tive results without exception. A disposition for short-term mating is as- first to empirically demonstrate the theoretically predicted connection
sociated with reduced levels of sexual disgust, but not with pathogen or between mating strategy and dispositional sexual disgust sensitivity.
moral disgust.
4.2. Mating strategy and pathogen disgust

3.2.3. Mating strategy and physical attractiveness At first blush, it seems surprising that mating strategy was unrelated
Replicating study 1's findings, and consistent with our secondary hy- to pathogen disgust. Pathogens and sexually transmitted infections are
pothesis that physical attractiveness has differential effects on men's an important potential cost of short-term mating (e.g. Buss, 2012;
and women's short-term mating psychology, physical attractiveness National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention,
and sex interacted to predict individuals' SOI scores, β = − .67, t 2011). Why would a proclivity for short-term mating not be associated
(266) = − 2.23, p = .03. As predicted, men's inclination toward with reduced levels of pathogen disgust?
short-term mating was positively associated with their physical A closer examination reveals two reasons for the absence of a
attractiveness, r(76) = .38, p = .001. Unexpectedly, however, relationship between short-term mating and pathogen disgust. First,
women's attractiveness also exhibited a small positive correlation the construct of pathogen disgust as a whole does include cues that
with their SOI-R scores, r(190) = .15, p = .03. Tables 3 and 4 display are relevant to short-term mating, such as cues to infection or disease.
zero-order bivariate correlations between physical attractiveness and However, it also contains a variety of cues that have little or no rele-
each subscale of the SOI-R for both men and women. vance to short-term mating, such as those pertaining to non-parasitic
insects, rodents, and spoiled and rotting food. One would therefore
expect only a small subset of the entire class of pathogen-relevant
3.2.4. Physical attractiveness → mating strategy → sexual disgust cues to trigger reduced desire to engage in short-term mating. The
Study 2's replication of the observed relationships between men's rest of the pathogen cues appear weakly relevant to mating, if at all.
attractiveness, mating strategy, and sexual disgust again suggested the Second, there is a distinction between the construct of pathogen
possibility of an indirect relationship between men's attractiveness disgust and the current studies' operationalization of this construct,
and sexual disgust through their mating strategy. Replicating the same the widely used pathogen sub-scale of the Three Domain Disgust Scale
link observed in study 1, study 2 data revealed an indirect path (Tybur et al., 2009, 2012). Perhaps in order to ensure the relative
from men's attractiveness to their sexual disgust via mating strategy, orthogonality of the pathogen and sexual disgust subscales, the patho-
β = −.20, SE = .06, p = .001. gen subscale is marked by a general absence of “overlap” cues—cues
that would be expected to trigger both sexual and pathogen disgust.
As a result, not only does the construct of pathogen disgust include
cues that are irrelevant to short-term mating, but the scale for pathogen
Table 3 disgust exacerbates this issue by focusing on “pure pathogen” cues that
Correlations between men's physical attractiveness and short-term mating. are unrelated to mating. This combination dilutes whatever true
Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R) Study 1 Study 2 relationship may exist between pathogen disgust and mating strategy,
leading to the statistical outcome that mating strategy appears strongly
Behavior .33⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎
Attitude .14 .35⁎⁎ related to sexual disgust, but not at all related, or only weakly related, to
Desire .16 .16 pathogen disgust. We expect that an instrument that measured
Overall .25⁎ .38⁎⁎ pathogen disgust without limiting scale items to those that do not
⁎ p b .05. overlap with sexual disgust would indeed be associated with short-
⁎⁎ p b .01. term mating.

Please cite this article as: Al-Shawaf, L., et al., Disgust and mating strategy, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2014.11.003
6 L. Al-Shawaf et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

4.3. Mating strategy and physical attractiveness for the attitude finding. The results presented here cannot conclusively
adjudicate between these (non-mutually exclusive) alternatives, so this
Our secondary hypothesis was that, consistent with existing theory remains an important question for future research.
and research, physical attractiveness would be associated with an orien- At present, we can conclude that physical attractiveness is positively
tation toward uncommitted mating among men but not among women. associated with short-term mating among men, with the strongest ef-
As expected, we found that sex and physical attractiveness interacted to fect sizes found for manifest behavior and with partial activation of
predict short-term mating orientation in both studies; the relationship men's short-term mating psychology.
between physical attractiveness and short-term mating was stronger
in men. 4.4. Limitations and future directions
However, we also found a weak positive association between
women's attractiveness and scores on the SOI-R in study 2. To further 4.4.1. Causation and directionality
investigate this unexpected association, we explored this relationship It seems reasonable to conceptualize sexual disgust as a
for each of the SOI-R's subscales. This closer analysis revealed that the design feature of short-term mating strategies, whereas the reverse
link between women's physical attractiveness and their SOI-R scores conceptualization is more problematic: it is not evolutionarily sensible
was driven exclusively by the behavior subscale; there was no relation- to regard a short-term mating strategy as a design feature of sexual
ship in either study between women's attractiveness and their attitudes disgust. Our reasoning therefore suggests that the link between mating
toward or desire for short-term mating. strategy and sexual disgust is directional in nature, with mating strategy
This pattern may be revealing, as high scores on distinct subscales calibrating sexual disgust sensitivity, but of course conclusive infer-
have different implications. Physically attractive women may have a ences about causation await experimental tests.
larger number of sexual partners (and hence have higher scores on Two important questions for future research concern the nature of the
the Behavior subscale) simply because they have a larger number of causal relationships between sexual disgust and mating strategy. First, if
eager suitors, but not necessarily because they are pursuing a short- mating strategy calibrates sexual disgust, we can ask whether lifespan
term mating strategy. The fact that women's attractiveness was not shifts in mating strategy cause shifts in sexual disgust thresholds. Second,
associated with desire for or positive attitudes toward short-term mat- we can ask the reverse causal question. If down-regulated sexual disgust
ing in either study corroborates this proposition. This absence of a facilitates short-term mating, then inducing sexual disgust may suppress
connection between women's attractiveness and short-term mating interest in short-term mating, affecting, for example, participants' self-
psychology suggests not that physical attractiveness activates short- reported sociosexual orientation or ideal number of sex partners. New
term mating among women, but rather that physically attractive research can investigate these questions through experimental studies
women accumulate a larger number of sex partners, perhaps as a side that manipulate mating strategy or sexual disgust, and through longitudi-
effect of having a larger number of suitors or by commencing sex at an nal studies that track whether naturally occurring shifts in mating
earlier age. strategy across the lifespan are accompanied by shifts in thresholds for
Indeed, previous studies have typically found either 1) no associa- sexual disgust.
tion between women's physical attractiveness (or proxies thereof)
and preferred mating strategy (e.g. Gangestad & Simpson, 2000;
4.4.2. Physical attractiveness and short-term mating
Landolt, Lalumière, & Quinsey, 1995), or 2) a relationship between
Another unresolved puzzle concerns the means by which physical
women's physical attractiveness and exclusively behavioral indices of
attractiveness leads to short-term mating. Is the mind designed to
mating strategy such as number of sex partners or age at first sex (e.g.
activate short-term mating strategies partly on the basis of high levels
Hughes, Dispenza, & Gallup, 2004; Rhodes et al., 2005; Wiederman &
of physical attractiveness, or do physically attractive people simply
Hurst, 1998). Some studies have found an association between female
accumulate more sex partners as an incidental side effect of factors
physical attractiveness and overall mating strategy (e.g. Clark, 2004),
such as having a larger number of suitors or earlier sexual debut?
but as the present study reveals, it is possible for such an association
Uncovering the means by which physical attractiveness leads to short-
to be driven entirely by the behavioral subscale of the SOI-R.
term mating behavior in men and women remains an important
In sum, extant data suggest that physical attractiveness in women
question for future research.
may predict behavioral indices of short-term mating such as age at
first sex or number of sex partners, but offer no discriminative evidence
that physical attractiveness in women activates the pursuit of a short- 4.4.3. Replications with different samples and convergent methods
term mating strategy. Rather, the subscale-specific nature of this Our pattern of results was robust across two independent studies
relationship suggests that attractive women's higher scores on behav- and using both the original and modified versions of the sexual disgust
ioral indices of mating activity may be more plausibly accounted for scale. This enhances confidence in the veracity of our findings, but
by alternative explanations, such as merely having a greater number the present research is limited by its sample and its method. Our central
of opportunities to mate with high mate value men. hypothesis—that reduced sexual disgust is a design feature of successful
As expected, both studies revealed that the relationship between short-term mating strategies—has yet to be tested in non-western, non-
physical attractiveness and short-term mating was stronger among student populations or with different methods. Showing that these
men. Not only was men's attractiveness directly related to overall results generalize to different cultures and replicate using convergent
short-term mating disposition in both samples, but unlike women, methods will bolster support for this hypothesis.
this relationship applied to both the behavioral and attitudinal domains.
The absence of a relationship between men's physical attractiveness 4.4.4. Sexual disgust and long-term mating
and their self-reported desire for short-term mating remains open to in- This research addresses the relationship between sexual disgust and
terpretation. If increased conscious desire for short-term mating is not short-term mating, but has yet to investigate a potential link between
necessary for physically attractive men to secure a larger number of sexual disgust and long-term mating. The SOI-R, the instrument most
sex partners, then behavioral attempts at short-term mating without in- commonly used to assess mating strategy, is a unidimensional scale
creased desire could enable short-term mating success while simulta- that taps short-term mating orientation but does not index desire for,
neously avoiding the reputational costs of appearing overly desirous of or orientation toward, long-term mating (Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007).
sex. Alternatively, physically attractive men may accumulate more sex As such, limitations on the scales used in the current study prevent us
partners partly because women more often initiate sex with attractive from revealing a possible link between sexual disgust and long-term
rather than unattractive men, though this explanation cannot account mating. This remains an important avenue for future research, especially

Please cite this article as: Al-Shawaf, L., et al., Disgust and mating strategy, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2014.11.003
 L. Al-Shawaf et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

for testing the idea that comparatively high levels of sexual disgust may Fleischman, D. S., & Fessler, D. M. (2011). Progesterone's effects on the psychology of dis-
ease avoidance: Support for the compensatory behavioral prophylaxis hypothesis.
actually benefit long-term monogamous relationships. Hormones and Behavior, 59(2), 271–275.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female socio-
sexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and
5. Conclusion strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al.
A robust pattern of evidence confirmed our primary hypothesis: (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain per-
sonality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96.
short-term mating orientation is associated with reduced sexual disgust Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A
sensitivity, but not lower levels of pathogen or moral disgust. This scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual
central finding held across two independent samples, was robust to Differences, 16(5), 701–713.
Hughes, S. M., Dispenza, F., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2004). Ratings of voice attractiveness pre-
modification of the scales involved, and was true for both sexes. This
dict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5),
represents the first evidence of a relationship between dispositional 295–304.
mating strategy and disgust, building a potentially important bridge Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating
between these two areas of human psychology. strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 28(6), 382–391.
We found qualified support for the secondary hypothesis that phys- Johnsen, A., Delhey, K., Schlicht, E., Peters, A., & Kempenaers, B. (2005). Male sexual attrac-
ical attractiveness activates the pursuit of short-term mating among tiveness and parental effort in blue tits: A test of the differential allocation hypothesis.
men but not among women. As expected, and consistent with previous Animal Behaviour, 70(4), 877–888.
Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex vari-
research, the association between physical attractiveness and short- ations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology,
term mating was stronger in men, but a weak association was also pres- 16(1), 3–23.
ent among women. Specific analyses further investigating this unex- Lee, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., Von Hippel, W., Brooks, R. C., & Zietsch, B. P. (2014). A multivariate
approach to human mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(3),
pected finding revealed a previously undiscovered pattern of results 193–203.
that raise questions about the means by which physical attractiveness Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection.
leads to short-term mating among both men and women. This remains Nature, 445, 727–731, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05510.
Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53
an important question for future research. nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual
The studies presented here reveal strong preliminary support for the Behavior, 38, 631–651.
central hypothesis that mating strategy calibrates sexual disgust, and in- Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and
processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
vite further tests of the hypothesis using different samples and methods.
Møller, A. P. (1994). Symmetrical male sexual ornaments, paternal care, and offspring
The novel discoveries revealed by these studies highlight the predictive quality. Behavioral Ecology, 5(2), 188–194.
power and heuristic value of an evolutionary psychological framework Møller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Male parental care, differential parental investment
for investigating previously unexplored links between disgust and by females and sexual selection. Animal Behaviour, 55(6), 1507–1515.
National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (2011). 10 ways
human mating, and point to new research questions for the integration STDs impact women differently from men. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control
of these domains of scientific inquiry. and Prevention.
Navarrete, C. D., & Fessler, D. M. (2006). Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects
of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 27(4), 270–282.
References Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more
differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic rela-
Al-Shawaf, L., & Lewis, D. M. G. (2013). Exposed intestines and contaminated cooks: Sex, tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135.
stress, & satiation predict disgust sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does
698–702. attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201.
Angyal, A. (1941). Disgust and related aversions. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23–41.
Psychology, 36(3), 393–412. Schaller, M., Miller, G. E., Gervais, W. M., Yager, S., & Chen, E. (2010). Mere visual
Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal perception of other people’s disease symptoms facilitates a more aggressive immune
on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 87–98. response. Psychological Science, 21(5), 649–652.
Borg, C., & de Jong, P. J. (2012). Feelings of disgust and disgust-induced avoidance weaken Stevenson, R. J., Case, T. I., & Oaten, M. J. (2011). Effect of self-reported sexual arousal on
following induced sexual arousal in women. PloS one, 7(9), e44111, http://dx.doi.org/ responses to sex-related and non-sex-related disgust cues. Archives of Sexual
10.1371/journal.pone.0044111. Behavior, 40(1), 79–85.
Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books. Sugiyama, L. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In D. M.
Buss, D. M. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Boston: Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–342).
Allyn & Bacon. New York: Wiley.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psy-
Clark, A. P. (2004). Self-perceived attractiveness and masculinization predict women's chology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson, & S. D. Pinkerton
sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 113–124. (Eds.), Sexual nature/sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Curtis, V., Aunger, R., & Rabie, T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Sell, A., Lieberman, D., & Sznycer, D. (2008). Internal regulatory
of disease. Proceedings-Royal Society of London Biological Sciences, 271, S131–S133. variables and the design of human motivation: A computational and evolutionary ap-
Curtis, V., de Barra, M., & Aunger, R. (2011). Disgust as an adaptive system for disease proach. In Andrew J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation
avoidance behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological (pp. 251–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sciences, 366(1563), 389–401. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual
de Jong, P. J., van Overveld, M., & Borg, C. (2013). Giving in to arousal or staying stuck in selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
disgust? Disgust-based mechanisms in sex and sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sex Tybur, J. M., & Gangestad, S. W. (2011). Mate preferences and infectious disease: Theoret-
Research, 50(3–4), 247–262. ical considerations and evidence in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Fessler, D. M., & Navarrete, C. D. (2003). Domain-specific variation in disgust sensitivity Society, B: Biological Sciences, 366(1583), 3375–3388.
across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(6), 406–417. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality:
Fessler, D. M., & Navarrete, C. D. (2005). The effect of age on death disgust: Challenges to Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality
terror management perspectives. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 279–296. and Social Psychology, 97(1), 103–122.
Fessler, D. M., Pillsworth, E. G., & Flamson, T. J. (2004). Angry men and disgusted women: Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2012). Disgust: Evolved function
An evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking. Organizational and structure. Psychological Review, 120, 65–84.
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 107–123. Wiederman, M. W., & Hurst, S. R. (1998). Body size, physical attractiveness, and
Fleischman, D. S. (2014). Women’s disgust adaptations. Evolutionary Perspectives on body image among young adult women: Relationships to sexual experience and
Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior (pp. 277–296). Springer: New York. sexual esteem. Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 272–281.

Please cite this article as: Al-Shawaf, L., et al., Disgust and mating strategy, Evolution and Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2014.11.003