sexual regret
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

14
(FIVE YEARS 4)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 147470492199833
Author(s):  
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair ◽  
Trond Viggo Grøntvedt ◽  
Mons Bendixen

In several recent papers the sex difference in regret predicted by sexual strategies theory has been supported: men more than women report regret passing up short-term sexual opportunities (inaction regret), while women regret having had sexual encounters (action regret). However, the adaptive function of regret, to improve future behavioral choices, has not been tested. In this first longitudinal test of behavioral change following regret, we consider whether regret actually results in adaptive shifts of behavior: will men who regret passing up sex engage in more short-term sex following regret? Will women who regret short-term encounters either choose better quality partners, reduce number of one-night stands or shift their strategy to long-term relationships? Across two waves (NT1 = 399, 65.4% women and NT2 = 222, 66.2% women) students responded to questions about casual sex action regret and inaction regret, along with possible outcomes, intrapersonal traits, and concurrent contextual predictors. There was no clear evidence for the proposed functional shifts in sexual behavior. Casual sex regret was associated with respondent sex and stable individual differences, such as sociosexual attitudes, regret processing and metacognitions, but the effect of these predictors were not consistent across the two waves. Among the tested concurrent contextual predictors, sexual disgust was the most consistent across waves. Regret is considered a gauge of the value and quality of the short-term sexual encounter. However, tentatively we conclude that after this first test of function using longitudinal data, we find no evidence of a mating strategy shifting effect following sexual regret.


Author(s):  
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair ◽  
Mons Bendixen
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Nicole L. Johnson ◽  
Marli Corbett-Hone ◽  
Malaïka H. C. Gutekunst ◽  
Jake A. Wolf
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Buss ◽  
David P. Schmitt

Evolved mate preferences comprise a central causal process in Darwin's theory of sexual selection. Their powerful influences have been documented in all sexually reproducing species, including in sexual strategies in humans. This article reviews the science of human mate preferences and their myriad behavioral manifestations. We discuss sex differences and sex similarities in human sexual psychology, which vary according to short-term and long-term mating contexts. We review context-specific shifts in mating strategy depending on individual, social, and ecological qualities such as mate value, life history strategy, sex ratio, gender economic inequality, and cultural norms. We review the empirical evidence for the impact of mate preferences on actual mating decisions. Mate preferences also dramatically influence tactics of mate attraction, tactics of mate retention, patterns of deception, causes of sexual regret, attraction to cues to sexual exploitability, attraction to cues to fertility, attraction to cues to resources and protection, derogation of competitors, causes of breakups, and patterns of remarriage. We conclude by articulating unresolved issues and offer a future agenda for the science of human mating, including how humans invent novel cultural technologies to better implement ancient sexual strategies and how cultural evolution may be dramatically influencing our evolved mating psychology.


Author(s):  
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair ◽  
Mons Bendixen
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 116 ◽  
pp. 246-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mons Bendixen ◽  
Kelly Asao ◽  
Joy P. Wyckoff ◽  
David M. Buss ◽  
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle C. Longest ◽  
Jeremy E. Uecker

Research indicates that religiosity inhibits adolescent and young adult sexual behavior, but few studies examine how religious contexts may shape sexual behavior. When religious contexts are considered, studies rarely test multiple spheres of religious influence simultaneously. Moreover, little research examines how either individual religiosity or religious contexts shape emotional responses to sex. We analyze nationally representative, longitudinal data that allow for concurrent examination of multiple religious contexts and several measures of young adult sexual behaviors and sexual regret. The influence of religiosity on sexual behavior and regret varies within and across both the spheres and outcomes tested. Individual religious salience and close ties with parents are the most consistent deterrents to initiation of sexual intercourse and having numerous intercourse partners. Closeness to parents and participation in religious activities are associated with lower odds of sexual regret, but ties to adults in one’s religious congregation are associated with increased sexual regret.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Buss

Despite interdependent reproductive fates that favor cooperation, males and females exhibit many psychological and behavioral footprints of sexually antagonistic coevolution. These include strategies of deception, sexual exploitation, and sexual infidelity as well as anti-exploitation defenses such as commitment skepticism and emotions such as sexual regret and jealousy. Sexual conflict pervades the mating arena prior to sexual consummation, after a mating relationship has formed, and in the aftermath of a breakup. It also permeates many other social relationships in forms such as daughter-guarding, conflict in opposite-sex friendships, and workplace sexual harassment. As such, sexual conflict constitutes not a narrow or occasional flashpoint but rather persistent threads that run through our intensely group-living species.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 147470491668290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair ◽  
Mons Bendixen ◽  
David M. Buss
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (7) ◽  
pp. 1145-1161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Galperin ◽  
Martie G. Haselton ◽  
David A. Frederick ◽  
Joshua Poore ◽  
William von Hippel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document