Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sociosexuality, Commitment, and Sexual Desire for an Attractive Person

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sociosexuality refers to a personal predisposition to engage in uncommitted sex. Romantically involved individuals are more likely to engage in infidelity when more unrestricted in their sociosexuality and less committed to their current partners. However, commitment reliably predicts relationship maintenance and the activation of pro-relationship behaviors, regardless of sociosexuality levels. In two studies (Study 1: N = 566 heterosexuals; M age = 21.24, SD = 4.45; Study 2: N = 168 heterosexuals; M age = 23.28, SD = 5.60), the association between sociosexuality and commitment was examined. Replicating previous findings, men were more sociosexually unrestricted than women, and single individuals were more sociosexually unrestricted than their romantically involved counterparts (Study 1). Results also showed that more committed individuals were more restricted in their sociosexuality (Studies 1 and 2) and that commitment was negatively associated with physical and sexual attraction to an attractive person, regardless of sociosexuality levels (Study 2). Furthermore, commitment, but not sociosexuality, predicted sexual infidelity in the current relationship and this effect emerged even among sociosexually unrestricted individuals (Studies 1 and 2). No additional gender differences were found across studies. These results converge with findings suggesting that individuals shift their mating strategies and restrict their sociosexuality when in a romantic relationship and that commitment prevents relationship threatening behaviors such as sexual attraction or sexual infidelity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Even though this component presents high reliability, increased reliability might still be achieved by removing SOI-R Item 1 “With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months?” from this component (α = .84; women α = .83; men α = .85). By computing a new mean score for behavior without this item, a 2 (Gender) x 2 (Relationship status) ANOVA replicated the significant effect of gender, F(1, 525) = 4.62, MSE = 6.88, p = .032, \( \eta_{p}^{2} \) = .01, but more importantly demonstrates the expected effect of relationship status albeit marginal, F(1, 525) = 3.28, MSE = 4.89, p = .071, \( \eta_{p}^{2} \) = .01. Single participants reported more unrestricted behavior (M = 1.95, SD = 1.31) than those romantically involved (M = 1.77, SD = 1.15). This may be due to the fact that Item 1 asked participants to disclose their sexual activity within the last 12 months, whereas Items 2 and 3 asked for behavioral tendencies throughout their lives. This consideration might prove of importance to future research as the currently conveyed social norms regarding unrestricted sexual behavior may prevent individuals from disclosing their current behaviors (e.g., Fisher, 2009) and can possibly hinder the results obtained with this measure.

  2. As we found no significant gender differences in the association between commitment and sociosexuality (Study 1) or in the attraction to the attractive target (Study 2), gender was dropped from subsequent analyses.

References

  • Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42, 1191–1206. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A. P., Mashek, D. J., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including other in the self. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 27–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190–1203. doi:10.1177/0146167201279011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J. B., & Penke, L. (2005). A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 275–276. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05220058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barchard, K. A., & Williams, J. (2008). Practical advice for conducting ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psychologists. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1111–1128. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 339–360. doi:10.1177/0265407505052440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaussart, M. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Gender differences and the effects of perceived internet privacy on self-reports of sexual behavior and sociosexuality. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2524–2529. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31. doi:10.1080/00224499809551914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, B. P., & Bakker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 313–318. doi:10.1080/00224499509551804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Gender differences in rival characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 395–408. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00089.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. T. (2015). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, alternative relationships: How “open” are we? Sexuality and Culture, 20, 295–315. doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9324-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26. doi:10.1080/00224490309552163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Verette, J. (1999a). Level of commitment, mutuality of commitment, and couple well-being. Personal Relationships, 6, 389–409. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00199.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999b). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. D. (2009). The impact of socially conveyed norms on the reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 567–572. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, C. A., Witcher, B. S., Campbell, W. K., & Green, J. D. (1998). Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 86–101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 508–522. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.5.508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967–980. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1407–1414. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. (1998). Sociosexuality and motivations for romantic involvement. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 173–182. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL 6: User’s guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152–161. doi:10.1177/0146167299025002002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Confirmation bias and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–26. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-8866-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, A., Pereira, M., Andrade, R., Dattilio, F. M., Narciso, I., & Canavarro, M. C. (2016). Infidelity in dating relationships: Gender-specific correlates of face-to-face and online extradyadic involvement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 193–205. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0576-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2003). Love at first fright: Partner salience moderates roller-coaster-induced excitation transfer. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 537–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior,. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulhall, J., King, R., Glina, S., & Hvidsten, K. (2008). Importance of and satisfaction with sex among men and women worldwide: Results of the global better sex survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 788–795. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00765.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nogueira, C., Saavedra, L., & Costa, C. (2008). Gender (in)visibility in juvenile sexuality: Proposals for a new conception about sexual education and prevention against risky sexual behaviors. Pro-Posições, 19, 59–79. doi:10.1590/S0103-73072008000200006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J., & Hyde, J. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38. doi:10.1037/a0017504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 149–165. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.551851.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 181–196. doi:10.1177/026540758900600203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1995). Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male and female sexual desire. Personal Relationships, 2, 345–358. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00097.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 25–37. doi:10.1300/J056v09n01_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21. doi:10.1300/J056v12n03_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2013a). The impact of general and moral commitment in derogating attractive alternatives. In A. Garcia & J. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Relações românticas, conjugais e parassociais (pp. 39–52). Vitória, Brazil: UFES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2013b). The Investment Model Scale (IMS): Further studies on construct validation and development of a shorter version (IMS-S). Journal of General Psychology, 140, 16–28. doi:10.1080/00221309.2012.710276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). Sociosexuality, commitment, sexual infidelity and perceptions of infidelity: Data from the Second Love website. Journal of Sex Research Online First,. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1145182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the Investment Model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. doi:10.1177/026540759301000202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000051.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01560274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034–1045. doi:10.1177/01461672972310004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., Allen, E. S., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 598–610. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.666816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434–461. doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 243–257. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tempelhof, T. C., & Allen, J. S. (2008). Partner-specific investment strategies: Similarities and differences in couples and associations with sociosexual orientation and attachment dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 41–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangelisti, A. L., & Gerstenberger, M. (2004). Communication and marital infidelity. In J. Duncombe, K. Harrison, G. Allan, & D. Marsden (Eds.), The state of affairs: Explorations in infidelity and commitment (pp. 59–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917–922. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the grant SFRH/BPD/73528/2010, awarded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia to the first author. The authors would like to thank Aleksandra Huić and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IUL, Av. das Forças Armadas, 1649-026, Lisbon, Portugal

    David Rodrigues & Diniz Lopes

  2. Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

    David Rodrigues

Authors
  1. David Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diniz Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Rodrigues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D. Sociosexuality, Commitment, and Sexual Desire for an Attractive Person. Arch Sex Behav 46, 775–788 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0814-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0814-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation