Five (plus or minus one): The point at which an assemblage of individuals is perceived as a single, unified group. Eric L. Stocks, Belen Lopez-Perez, Luis V. Oceja & Travis Evans. The Journal of Social Psychology, May 3 2019. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2019.1610349?journalCode=vsoc20
ABSTRACT: At what point is an assemblage of individuals perceived as a single, unified group? And how do demographic characteristics of these individuals influence perceptions of groupness? To answer these questions, we conducted four studies in which participants viewed sets of images that varied in the number of individuals depicted, and then identified the number of persons at which the assemblage was perceived to be a single, unified group. Across four studies, we manipulated the gender and race composition of the persons depicted. The results suggest that five (plus or minus one) people constitutes the point at which a collection of persons is perceived less like separate individuals and more like a single, unified group. However, the demographic complexity of the assemblage also influences perceived groupness. The number of individuals required to be perceived as a unified group is larger for diverse, compared to homogeneous, assemblages of individuals.
KEYWORDS: Group perception, entitativity, group processes, identity
Bipartisan Alliance, a Society for the Study of the US Constitution, and of Human Nature, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
Marriage is not a determinant for sexual satisfaction; can even be a negative correlate when respondents are compared to certain unmarried groups; exception is the unmarried individual with no partner
Does Marriage Really Improve Sexual Satisfaction? Evidence From the Pairfam Data Set. Elyakim Kislev. The Journal of Sex Research, May 3 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1608146
Abstract: In light of the growing unmarried demographic, this study analyzed the extent and determinants of sexual satisfaction among seven relationship-status groups: married, never married, and those who are divorced/separated, where the latter two groups are further divided into single, living apart together (LAT), and cohabiting. In addition, the study measured the levels of sexual self-esteem, sexual communication, and sex frequency for the different relationship-status groups as predictors of sexual satisfaction. Finally, this study also analyzed sexual satisfaction while accounting for overall life satisfaction. Using the ninth wave of the Pairfam data set and analyzing the responses of 3,207 respondents in total, this study suggests that marriage is not a determinant for sexual satisfaction. In fact, it can even be a negative correlate when married respondents are compared to certain unmarried groups. The only exception is that of unmarried individuals who currently have no partner. Even this situation is shown to be dependent only on less frequent intercourse, not on a lack of sexual self-esteem and sexual communication. These conclusions challenge previous research as well as the explanations of earlier scholars. Several directions for future research are discussed in light of these findings.
---
In the conclusions:
The findings show that married people reported lower rates of sexual self-esteem and sexual communication skills than most groups. In terms of sexual communication, only never-married cohabiting people were comparable to married people for both genders, while never-marriedsingle and LAT women and divorced/separated and single women were also comparable to married women. In terms of sexual self-esteem, divorced/separated LAT and never-married cohabiting men were comparable to married men, while only never-married cohabiting women showed lowerrates than married women. Moreover, the findings indicate that marriage per se isnot beneficial for sexual satisfaction. In fact, the base model in Table 3 shows that married couples score rela-tively low in this regard. Non partnered singles scored lower than the married group in terms of sexual satisfac-tion, but the main reason that they were less sexually satisfied than married couples was sex frequency, whichwas naturally lower for non partnered singles than for couples. Therefore, it seems that it is not marriage that isbeneficial to sexual satisfaction but rather having a partner. With the exception of divorced LATs, once one hasa partner, marriage is not a contributor.
It seems that previous studies arguing in favor of marriageshould be more nuanced in several ways. First, they unjustifiably blend the groups of unmarried people together. By combining singles with other unmarried groups, they inaccurately showthat marriage is advantageous for sexual satisfaction. Second,these studies should have isolated LAT singles. This group is more than just an exception. This group, which has rarely been studied, demonstrates that it is not necessarily the nuptial system that makes the difference in terms of sexual satisfaction, it is partnership. Third, several of the previous studies measured sexual satisfaction without some major mediators such as sex frequency and overall life satisfaction. The detailed and rich data of the Pairfam survey show that even singles who havenever been married are more likely to report higher levels ofsexual self-esteem and sexual communication and that it ismostly the availability of sex that makes them less satisfiedsexually. Again, this has implications for the nuptial system ingeneral. Marriage is not beneficial to sexual satisfaction in andof itself (e.g., the value of commitment, the willingness to adapt)but due to the fact that couples are more likely to have a sexpartner in reach.
Step 2 in the multiple hierarchical regression presented in Table 3 is important in this respect because it shows howt he relatively lower scores on sexual self-esteem and sexual communication are significant for married couples. Accounting for these variables, married couples attain similar levels to other groups. In fact, married couples even show higher levels than other groups after accounting for the relatively lower levels of sexual self-esteem and sexual communication, as presented inTable 2. However,this is partly due to the overall advantages that they have in life due to their married status, as step 3 in the multiple hierarchical regression presented in Table 3shows.
Indeed, it is important to account for life satisfaction,because satisfaction in different life realms is interrelated
Abstract: In light of the growing unmarried demographic, this study analyzed the extent and determinants of sexual satisfaction among seven relationship-status groups: married, never married, and those who are divorced/separated, where the latter two groups are further divided into single, living apart together (LAT), and cohabiting. In addition, the study measured the levels of sexual self-esteem, sexual communication, and sex frequency for the different relationship-status groups as predictors of sexual satisfaction. Finally, this study also analyzed sexual satisfaction while accounting for overall life satisfaction. Using the ninth wave of the Pairfam data set and analyzing the responses of 3,207 respondents in total, this study suggests that marriage is not a determinant for sexual satisfaction. In fact, it can even be a negative correlate when married respondents are compared to certain unmarried groups. The only exception is that of unmarried individuals who currently have no partner. Even this situation is shown to be dependent only on less frequent intercourse, not on a lack of sexual self-esteem and sexual communication. These conclusions challenge previous research as well as the explanations of earlier scholars. Several directions for future research are discussed in light of these findings.
---
In the conclusions:
The findings show that married people reported lower rates of sexual self-esteem and sexual communication skills than most groups. In terms of sexual communication, only never-married cohabiting people were comparable to married people for both genders, while never-marriedsingle and LAT women and divorced/separated and single women were also comparable to married women. In terms of sexual self-esteem, divorced/separated LAT and never-married cohabiting men were comparable to married men, while only never-married cohabiting women showed lowerrates than married women. Moreover, the findings indicate that marriage per se isnot beneficial for sexual satisfaction. In fact, the base model in Table 3 shows that married couples score rela-tively low in this regard. Non partnered singles scored lower than the married group in terms of sexual satisfac-tion, but the main reason that they were less sexually satisfied than married couples was sex frequency, whichwas naturally lower for non partnered singles than for couples. Therefore, it seems that it is not marriage that isbeneficial to sexual satisfaction but rather having a partner. With the exception of divorced LATs, once one hasa partner, marriage is not a contributor.
It seems that previous studies arguing in favor of marriageshould be more nuanced in several ways. First, they unjustifiably blend the groups of unmarried people together. By combining singles with other unmarried groups, they inaccurately showthat marriage is advantageous for sexual satisfaction. Second,these studies should have isolated LAT singles. This group is more than just an exception. This group, which has rarely been studied, demonstrates that it is not necessarily the nuptial system that makes the difference in terms of sexual satisfaction, it is partnership. Third, several of the previous studies measured sexual satisfaction without some major mediators such as sex frequency and overall life satisfaction. The detailed and rich data of the Pairfam survey show that even singles who havenever been married are more likely to report higher levels ofsexual self-esteem and sexual communication and that it ismostly the availability of sex that makes them less satisfiedsexually. Again, this has implications for the nuptial system ingeneral. Marriage is not beneficial to sexual satisfaction in andof itself (e.g., the value of commitment, the willingness to adapt)but due to the fact that couples are more likely to have a sexpartner in reach.
Step 2 in the multiple hierarchical regression presented in Table 3 is important in this respect because it shows howt he relatively lower scores on sexual self-esteem and sexual communication are significant for married couples. Accounting for these variables, married couples attain similar levels to other groups. In fact, married couples even show higher levels than other groups after accounting for the relatively lower levels of sexual self-esteem and sexual communication, as presented inTable 2. However,this is partly due to the overall advantages that they have in life due to their married status, as step 3 in the multiple hierarchical regression presented in Table 3shows.
Indeed, it is important to account for life satisfaction,because satisfaction in different life realms is interrelated
Worse economy, harsher health conditions predicts more mouth to mouth kissing, which becomes a better measure of partner investment than cuddling or sex
National income inequality predicts cultural variation in mouth to mouth kissing. Christopher D. Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff & Samuela Bolgan. Scientific Reports, volume 9, Article number: 6698 (2019). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43267-7
Abstract: Romantic mouth-to-mouth kissing is culturally widespread, although not a human universal, and may play a functional role in assessing partner health and maintaining long-term pair bonds. Use and appreciation of kissing may therefore vary according to whether the environment places a premium on good health and partner investment. Here, we test for cultural variation (13 countries from six continents) in these behaviours/attitudes according to national health (historical pathogen prevalence) and both absolute (GDP) and relative wealth (GINI). Our data reveal that kissing is valued more in established relationships than it is valued during courtship. Also, consistent with the pair bonding hypothesis of the function of romantic kissing, relative poverty (income inequality) predicts frequency of kissing across romantic relationships. When aggregated, the predicted relationship between income inequality and kissing frequency (r = 0.67, BCa 95% CI[0.32,0.89]) was over five times the size of the null correlations between income inequality and frequency of hugging/cuddling and sex. As social complexity requires monitoring resource competition among large groups and predicts kissing prevalence in remote societies, this gesture may be important in the maintenance of long-term pair bonds in specific environments.
Introduction
Romantic love and passion are cultural universals1,2. Simultaneously, pair bonds within different cultures vary in their norms, rituals and forms of romantic expression3. In western samples, ‘ideal relationships’ are conceived on two dimensions of intimacy-loyalty and passion4, with intimacy related to relationship quality independent of couple sexuality5. Expressions of love and overt acts of affection enhance feelings of commitment6 and are related to stable marital bonds7. Moreover, sharing in novel and arousing activities enhances relationship quality8 and nonverbal expressions of love alter feeling states and facilitate the release of putative attachment hormones9. Collectively, many relationship behaviours and expressions of romantic attachment contribute to maintaining durable pair bonds, which are important to understand given that threats to pair bonds may affect health and wellbeing [...].
Although not a human universal, romantic kissing is observed in a wide variety of cultures11 and being perceived as a good kisser can enhance a person’s desirability as a partner (e.g., for short-term relationships12). Indeed, some naturalistic studies have documented kissing in courtship, where reciprocal affection is related to synchrony in body movements13. Cues obtained from close physical contact with a partner may facilitate mate assessment14, consistent with species that use gustatory and olfactory cues to regulate courtship rituals15 (see also16). As the prevalence of courtship rituals may point to their adaptive function, the mate assessment hypothesis14,17 proposes that kissing functions to assess putative cues to biological quality in a partner via close contact. In light of behavioural motivations to avoid pathogens (see18 for discussion), biases to over-perceive disease cues19, and given that the exchange of saliva may increase the likelihood of transmitting some infections (see20 for a recent review), romantic kissing may incur costs. As such, we do not engage in romantic kissing indiscriminately, unless the costs of kissing are traded off in favour of escalating courtship with a ‘high quality’ mate14. Consistent with the mate assessment hypothesis, kissing is more important, and is more likely to influence attraction, for the more ‘selective’ sex (women21,22), among more selective individuals (attractive individuals) and in contexts where the costs of choosing a less healthy mate are greater (i.e. in short-term sexual encounters14). [...]
Here, we extend Wlodarski & Dunbar’s14,17 two hypotheses, and test for cultural differences in the use and appreciation of kissing in romantic relationships. First, if kissing plays a role in assessments of ‘quality’, the benefits of assessing partner quality are likely to be greater in less-healthy environments (see, e.g.23, for a similar line of reasoning related to mate preferences). Here, we examine the mate assessment hypothesis and test whether people in less-healthy countries place greater importance on this form of courtship behaviour (i.e. to assess quality, as indexed via attitudes) but do so selectively (as indexed via frequency) in light of the greater potential risks of kissing within a high-pathogen environment. Thus, we predict that national health will be negatively related to the importance of kissing at the initial stages of a romantic relationship (Hypothesis #1) and, as a pathogen avoidance mechanism, will be negatively related to participant’s reported satisfaction with the amount of kissing in romantic relationships (i.e., a weaker desire for more frequent kissing in less-healthy countries, Hypothesis #2). Moreover, as the health costs of kissing in such environments will be lesser, we predict that national health will be positively related to the frequency of kissing within romantic relationships (Hypothesis #3). National income inequality predicts cultural variation in mouth to mouth kissing. Christopher D. Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff & Samuela Bolgan. Scientific Reports, volume 9, Article number: 6698 (2019). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43267-7
Abstract: Romantic mouth-to-mouth kissing is culturally widespread, although not a human universal, and may play a functional role in assessing partner health and maintaining long-term pair bonds. Use and appreciation of kissing may therefore vary according to whether the environment places a premium on good health and partner investment. Here, we test for cultural variation (13 countries from six continents) in these behaviours/attitudes according to national health (historical pathogen prevalence) and both absolute (GDP) and relative wealth (GINI). Our data reveal that kissing is valued more in established relationships than it is valued during courtship. Also, consistent with the pair bonding hypothesis of the function of romantic kissing, relative poverty (income inequality) predicts frequency of kissing across romantic relationships. When aggregated, the predicted relationship between income inequality and kissing frequency (r = 0.67, BCa 95% CI[0.32,0.89]) was over five times the size of the null correlations between income inequality and frequency of hugging/cuddling and sex. As social complexity requires monitoring resource competition among large groups and predicts kissing prevalence in remote societies, this gesture may be important in the maintenance of long-term pair bonds in specific environments.
Introduction
Romantic love and passion are cultural universals1,2. Simultaneously, pair bonds within different cultures vary in their norms, rituals and forms of romantic expression3. In western samples, ‘ideal relationships’ are conceived on two dimensions of intimacy-loyalty and passion4, with intimacy related to relationship quality independent of couple sexuality5. Expressions of love and overt acts of affection enhance feelings of commitment6 and are related to stable marital bonds7. Moreover, sharing in novel and arousing activities enhances relationship quality8 and nonverbal expressions of love alter feeling states and facilitate the release of putative attachment hormones9. Collectively, many relationship behaviours and expressions of romantic attachment contribute to maintaining durable pair bonds, which are important to understand given that threats to pair bonds may affect health and wellbeing [...].
Although not a human universal, romantic kissing is observed in a wide variety of cultures11 and being perceived as a good kisser can enhance a person’s desirability as a partner (e.g., for short-term relationships12). Indeed, some naturalistic studies have documented kissing in courtship, where reciprocal affection is related to synchrony in body movements13. Cues obtained from close physical contact with a partner may facilitate mate assessment14, consistent with species that use gustatory and olfactory cues to regulate courtship rituals15 (see also16). As the prevalence of courtship rituals may point to their adaptive function, the mate assessment hypothesis14,17 proposes that kissing functions to assess putative cues to biological quality in a partner via close contact. In light of behavioural motivations to avoid pathogens (see18 for discussion), biases to over-perceive disease cues19, and given that the exchange of saliva may increase the likelihood of transmitting some infections (see20 for a recent review), romantic kissing may incur costs. As such, we do not engage in romantic kissing indiscriminately, unless the costs of kissing are traded off in favour of escalating courtship with a ‘high quality’ mate14. Consistent with the mate assessment hypothesis, kissing is more important, and is more likely to influence attraction, for the more ‘selective’ sex (women21,22), among more selective individuals (attractive individuals) and in contexts where the costs of choosing a less healthy mate are greater (i.e. in short-term sexual encounters14). [...]
Here, we extend Wlodarski & Dunbar’s14,17 two hypotheses, and test for cultural differences in the use and appreciation of kissing in romantic relationships. First, if kissing plays a role in assessments of ‘quality’, the benefits of assessing partner quality are likely to be greater in less-healthy environments (see, e.g.23, for a similar line of reasoning related to mate preferences). Here, we examine the mate assessment hypothesis and test whether people in less-healthy countries place greater importance on this form of courtship behaviour (i.e. to assess quality, as indexed via attitudes) but do so selectively (as indexed via frequency) in light of the greater potential risks of kissing within a high-pathogen environment. Thus, we predict that national health will be negatively related to the importance of kissing at the initial stages of a romantic relationship (Hypothesis #1) and, as a pathogen avoidance mechanism, will be negatively related to participant’s reported satisfaction with the amount of kissing in romantic relationships (i.e., a weaker desire for more frequent kissing in less-healthy countries, Hypothesis #2). Moreover, as the health costs of kissing in such environments will be lesser, we predict that national health will be positively related to the frequency of kissing within romantic relationships (Hypothesis #3). In other words, this would extend prior research by suggesting that the value attached to kissing as a mate assessment cue is greater in high pathogen ecologies (i.e., to accept or reject a partner) even if it is used sparingly in these environments.
Second, theoretical perspectives argue that monogamy and/or relationship investment are valued in harsh environments, such as those where resources are scarce in relative or absolute terms (see, e.g.24,25, for discussion), and the pair bonding hypothesis14 proposes that kissing plays an important role in how couples maintain and monitor the quality of a committed romantic relationship. Thus, we test the pair bonding hypothesis by examining whether individuals from countries of low absolute and relative wealth (i.e. high income inequality) place greater importance on kissing at the established (but not initial) phases of a romantic relationship (i.e. when investment is of greater concern; Hypothesis #4), report greater frequency of kissing in their relationships (to maintain a pair-bond in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #5) and lower satisfaction with the amount of kissing in their relationships (i.e., a stronger desire to signal investment through kissing in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #6).
When testing both hypotheses on the function of mouth-to-mouth kissing in relationships, we also test for national differences in two other forms of close/intimate contact (hugging and sexual intercourse) in order to examine whether our predictions are specific to, or are stronger or weaker for, mouth-to-mouth kissing than other forms of romantic expression. Evidence for specificity in our findings toward kissing would complement prior work, which demonstrates that kissing is a more substantial predictor of romantic relationship quality than other forms of closeness and/or intimacy such as sexual intercourse17, by suggesting that the ‘special’ role that kissing may play in the quality of long-term romantic relationships, and potentially relationship outcomes, varies according to the harshness of the environment. [...]
Finally, we aim to replicate prior work by testing for an identical factor structure to the perceived components of a good kiss (biological/sensory component, arousal/contact and technique/execution17) among a broader international sample. [...].
Second, theoretical perspectives argue that monogamy and/or relationship investment are valued in harsh environments, such as those where resources are scarce in relative or absolute terms (see, e.g.24,25, for discussion), and the pair bonding hypothesis14 proposes that kissing plays an important role in how couples maintain and monitor the quality of a committed romantic relationship. Thus, we test the pair bonding hypothesis by examining whether individuals from countries of low absolute and relative wealth (i.e. high income inequality) place greater importance on kissing at the established (but not initial) phases of a romantic relationship (i.e. when investment is of greater concern; Hypothesis #4), report greater frequency of kissing in their relationships (to maintain a pair-bond in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #5) and lower satisfaction with the amount of kissing in their relationships (i.e., a stronger desire to signal investment through kissing in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #6).
When testing both hypotheses on the function of mouth-to-mouth kissing in relationships, we also test for national differences in two other forms of close/intimate contact (hugging and sexual intercourse) in order to examine whether our predictions are specific to, or are stronger or weaker for, mouth-to-mouth kissing than other forms of romantic expression. Evidence for specificity in our findings toward kissing would complement prior work, which demonstrates that kissing is a more substantial predictor of romantic relationship quality than other forms of closeness and/or intimacy such as sexual intercourse17, by suggesting that the ‘special’ role that kissing may play in the quality of long-term romantic relationships, and potentially relationship outcomes, varies according to the harshness of the environment. [...]
Finally, we aim to replicate prior work by testing for an identical factor structure to the perceived components of a good kiss (biological/sensory component, arousal/contact and technique/execution17) among a broader international sample. [...]
Abstract: Romantic mouth-to-mouth kissing is culturally widespread, although not a human universal, and may play a functional role in assessing partner health and maintaining long-term pair bonds. Use and appreciation of kissing may therefore vary according to whether the environment places a premium on good health and partner investment. Here, we test for cultural variation (13 countries from six continents) in these behaviours/attitudes according to national health (historical pathogen prevalence) and both absolute (GDP) and relative wealth (GINI). Our data reveal that kissing is valued more in established relationships than it is valued during courtship. Also, consistent with the pair bonding hypothesis of the function of romantic kissing, relative poverty (income inequality) predicts frequency of kissing across romantic relationships. When aggregated, the predicted relationship between income inequality and kissing frequency (r = 0.67, BCa 95% CI[0.32,0.89]) was over five times the size of the null correlations between income inequality and frequency of hugging/cuddling and sex. As social complexity requires monitoring resource competition among large groups and predicts kissing prevalence in remote societies, this gesture may be important in the maintenance of long-term pair bonds in specific environments.
Introduction
Romantic love and passion are cultural universals1,2. Simultaneously, pair bonds within different cultures vary in their norms, rituals and forms of romantic expression3. In western samples, ‘ideal relationships’ are conceived on two dimensions of intimacy-loyalty and passion4, with intimacy related to relationship quality independent of couple sexuality5. Expressions of love and overt acts of affection enhance feelings of commitment6 and are related to stable marital bonds7. Moreover, sharing in novel and arousing activities enhances relationship quality8 and nonverbal expressions of love alter feeling states and facilitate the release of putative attachment hormones9. Collectively, many relationship behaviours and expressions of romantic attachment contribute to maintaining durable pair bonds, which are important to understand given that threats to pair bonds may affect health and wellbeing [...].
Although not a human universal, romantic kissing is observed in a wide variety of cultures11 and being perceived as a good kisser can enhance a person’s desirability as a partner (e.g., for short-term relationships12). Indeed, some naturalistic studies have documented kissing in courtship, where reciprocal affection is related to synchrony in body movements13. Cues obtained from close physical contact with a partner may facilitate mate assessment14, consistent with species that use gustatory and olfactory cues to regulate courtship rituals15 (see also16). As the prevalence of courtship rituals may point to their adaptive function, the mate assessment hypothesis14,17 proposes that kissing functions to assess putative cues to biological quality in a partner via close contact. In light of behavioural motivations to avoid pathogens (see18 for discussion), biases to over-perceive disease cues19, and given that the exchange of saliva may increase the likelihood of transmitting some infections (see20 for a recent review), romantic kissing may incur costs. As such, we do not engage in romantic kissing indiscriminately, unless the costs of kissing are traded off in favour of escalating courtship with a ‘high quality’ mate14. Consistent with the mate assessment hypothesis, kissing is more important, and is more likely to influence attraction, for the more ‘selective’ sex (women21,22), among more selective individuals (attractive individuals) and in contexts where the costs of choosing a less healthy mate are greater (i.e. in short-term sexual encounters14). [...]
Here, we extend Wlodarski & Dunbar’s14,17 two hypotheses, and test for cultural differences in the use and appreciation of kissing in romantic relationships. First, if kissing plays a role in assessments of ‘quality’, the benefits of assessing partner quality are likely to be greater in less-healthy environments (see, e.g.23, for a similar line of reasoning related to mate preferences). Here, we examine the mate assessment hypothesis and test whether people in less-healthy countries place greater importance on this form of courtship behaviour (i.e. to assess quality, as indexed via attitudes) but do so selectively (as indexed via frequency) in light of the greater potential risks of kissing within a high-pathogen environment. Thus, we predict that national health will be negatively related to the importance of kissing at the initial stages of a romantic relationship (Hypothesis #1) and, as a pathogen avoidance mechanism, will be negatively related to participant’s reported satisfaction with the amount of kissing in romantic relationships (i.e., a weaker desire for more frequent kissing in less-healthy countries, Hypothesis #2). Moreover, as the health costs of kissing in such environments will be lesser, we predict that national health will be positively related to the frequency of kissing within romantic relationships (Hypothesis #3). National income inequality predicts cultural variation in mouth to mouth kissing. Christopher D. Watkins, Juan David Leongómez, Jeanne Bovet, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Max Korbmacher, Marco Antônio Corrêa Varella, Ana Maria Fernandez, Danielle Wagstaff & Samuela Bolgan. Scientific Reports, volume 9, Article number: 6698 (2019). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43267-7
Abstract: Romantic mouth-to-mouth kissing is culturally widespread, although not a human universal, and may play a functional role in assessing partner health and maintaining long-term pair bonds. Use and appreciation of kissing may therefore vary according to whether the environment places a premium on good health and partner investment. Here, we test for cultural variation (13 countries from six continents) in these behaviours/attitudes according to national health (historical pathogen prevalence) and both absolute (GDP) and relative wealth (GINI). Our data reveal that kissing is valued more in established relationships than it is valued during courtship. Also, consistent with the pair bonding hypothesis of the function of romantic kissing, relative poverty (income inequality) predicts frequency of kissing across romantic relationships. When aggregated, the predicted relationship between income inequality and kissing frequency (r = 0.67, BCa 95% CI[0.32,0.89]) was over five times the size of the null correlations between income inequality and frequency of hugging/cuddling and sex. As social complexity requires monitoring resource competition among large groups and predicts kissing prevalence in remote societies, this gesture may be important in the maintenance of long-term pair bonds in specific environments.
Introduction
Romantic love and passion are cultural universals1,2. Simultaneously, pair bonds within different cultures vary in their norms, rituals and forms of romantic expression3. In western samples, ‘ideal relationships’ are conceived on two dimensions of intimacy-loyalty and passion4, with intimacy related to relationship quality independent of couple sexuality5. Expressions of love and overt acts of affection enhance feelings of commitment6 and are related to stable marital bonds7. Moreover, sharing in novel and arousing activities enhances relationship quality8 and nonverbal expressions of love alter feeling states and facilitate the release of putative attachment hormones9. Collectively, many relationship behaviours and expressions of romantic attachment contribute to maintaining durable pair bonds, which are important to understand given that threats to pair bonds may affect health and wellbeing [...].
Although not a human universal, romantic kissing is observed in a wide variety of cultures11 and being perceived as a good kisser can enhance a person’s desirability as a partner (e.g., for short-term relationships12). Indeed, some naturalistic studies have documented kissing in courtship, where reciprocal affection is related to synchrony in body movements13. Cues obtained from close physical contact with a partner may facilitate mate assessment14, consistent with species that use gustatory and olfactory cues to regulate courtship rituals15 (see also16). As the prevalence of courtship rituals may point to their adaptive function, the mate assessment hypothesis14,17 proposes that kissing functions to assess putative cues to biological quality in a partner via close contact. In light of behavioural motivations to avoid pathogens (see18 for discussion), biases to over-perceive disease cues19, and given that the exchange of saliva may increase the likelihood of transmitting some infections (see20 for a recent review), romantic kissing may incur costs. As such, we do not engage in romantic kissing indiscriminately, unless the costs of kissing are traded off in favour of escalating courtship with a ‘high quality’ mate14. Consistent with the mate assessment hypothesis, kissing is more important, and is more likely to influence attraction, for the more ‘selective’ sex (women21,22), among more selective individuals (attractive individuals) and in contexts where the costs of choosing a less healthy mate are greater (i.e. in short-term sexual encounters14). [...]
Here, we extend Wlodarski & Dunbar’s14,17 two hypotheses, and test for cultural differences in the use and appreciation of kissing in romantic relationships. First, if kissing plays a role in assessments of ‘quality’, the benefits of assessing partner quality are likely to be greater in less-healthy environments (see, e.g.23, for a similar line of reasoning related to mate preferences). Here, we examine the mate assessment hypothesis and test whether people in less-healthy countries place greater importance on this form of courtship behaviour (i.e. to assess quality, as indexed via attitudes) but do so selectively (as indexed via frequency) in light of the greater potential risks of kissing within a high-pathogen environment. Thus, we predict that national health will be negatively related to the importance of kissing at the initial stages of a romantic relationship (Hypothesis #1) and, as a pathogen avoidance mechanism, will be negatively related to participant’s reported satisfaction with the amount of kissing in romantic relationships (i.e., a weaker desire for more frequent kissing in less-healthy countries, Hypothesis #2). Moreover, as the health costs of kissing in such environments will be lesser, we predict that national health will be positively related to the frequency of kissing within romantic relationships (Hypothesis #3). In other words, this would extend prior research by suggesting that the value attached to kissing as a mate assessment cue is greater in high pathogen ecologies (i.e., to accept or reject a partner) even if it is used sparingly in these environments.
Second, theoretical perspectives argue that monogamy and/or relationship investment are valued in harsh environments, such as those where resources are scarce in relative or absolute terms (see, e.g.24,25, for discussion), and the pair bonding hypothesis14 proposes that kissing plays an important role in how couples maintain and monitor the quality of a committed romantic relationship. Thus, we test the pair bonding hypothesis by examining whether individuals from countries of low absolute and relative wealth (i.e. high income inequality) place greater importance on kissing at the established (but not initial) phases of a romantic relationship (i.e. when investment is of greater concern; Hypothesis #4), report greater frequency of kissing in their relationships (to maintain a pair-bond in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #5) and lower satisfaction with the amount of kissing in their relationships (i.e., a stronger desire to signal investment through kissing in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #6).
When testing both hypotheses on the function of mouth-to-mouth kissing in relationships, we also test for national differences in two other forms of close/intimate contact (hugging and sexual intercourse) in order to examine whether our predictions are specific to, or are stronger or weaker for, mouth-to-mouth kissing than other forms of romantic expression. Evidence for specificity in our findings toward kissing would complement prior work, which demonstrates that kissing is a more substantial predictor of romantic relationship quality than other forms of closeness and/or intimacy such as sexual intercourse17, by suggesting that the ‘special’ role that kissing may play in the quality of long-term romantic relationships, and potentially relationship outcomes, varies according to the harshness of the environment. [...]
Finally, we aim to replicate prior work by testing for an identical factor structure to the perceived components of a good kiss (biological/sensory component, arousal/contact and technique/execution17) among a broader international sample. [...].
Second, theoretical perspectives argue that monogamy and/or relationship investment are valued in harsh environments, such as those where resources are scarce in relative or absolute terms (see, e.g.24,25, for discussion), and the pair bonding hypothesis14 proposes that kissing plays an important role in how couples maintain and monitor the quality of a committed romantic relationship. Thus, we test the pair bonding hypothesis by examining whether individuals from countries of low absolute and relative wealth (i.e. high income inequality) place greater importance on kissing at the established (but not initial) phases of a romantic relationship (i.e. when investment is of greater concern; Hypothesis #4), report greater frequency of kissing in their relationships (to maintain a pair-bond in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #5) and lower satisfaction with the amount of kissing in their relationships (i.e., a stronger desire to signal investment through kissing in an economically harsh environment, Hypothesis #6).
When testing both hypotheses on the function of mouth-to-mouth kissing in relationships, we also test for national differences in two other forms of close/intimate contact (hugging and sexual intercourse) in order to examine whether our predictions are specific to, or are stronger or weaker for, mouth-to-mouth kissing than other forms of romantic expression. Evidence for specificity in our findings toward kissing would complement prior work, which demonstrates that kissing is a more substantial predictor of romantic relationship quality than other forms of closeness and/or intimacy such as sexual intercourse17, by suggesting that the ‘special’ role that kissing may play in the quality of long-term romantic relationships, and potentially relationship outcomes, varies according to the harshness of the environment. [...]
Finally, we aim to replicate prior work by testing for an identical factor structure to the perceived components of a good kiss (biological/sensory component, arousal/contact and technique/execution17) among a broader international sample. [...]
Drosophila simulans: Alcohol intake did not affect copulation duration, but did reduce female choosiness & weakened the strength of mate preference, as females mated more quickly & with more males
Archer, C. Ruth and Alper, Cleo and Mack, Laura and Weedon, Melanie and Sharma, Manmohan D. and Sutter, Andreas and Hosken, David J., Alcohol Alters Female Sexual Behaviour (April 25, 2019). SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3378006
Abstract: Consuming alcohol can influence sexual decision-making, but potential effects on female mating-behaviours like mate-choice are unclear. If alcohol alters female mate-choice then its consumption will affect sexual selection, a major mechanism of organic evolution. Here, we tested whether alcohol intake affected female mate preferences, choosiness and copulation duration using the fly Drosophila simulans as a model, while simultaneously testing for genetic variation in possible effects. We found that alcohol intake did not affect copulation duration, but did reduce female choosiness and weakened the strength of mate preference, as females mated more quickly and with more males after consuming alcohol. Although female genotype significantly affected choosiness, the effects of alcohol were broadly consistent across genotypes. Thus alcohol consumption reduced female choosiness and weakened mate-preference, potentially reducing the strength of sexual selection.
Abstract: Consuming alcohol can influence sexual decision-making, but potential effects on female mating-behaviours like mate-choice are unclear. If alcohol alters female mate-choice then its consumption will affect sexual selection, a major mechanism of organic evolution. Here, we tested whether alcohol intake affected female mate preferences, choosiness and copulation duration using the fly Drosophila simulans as a model, while simultaneously testing for genetic variation in possible effects. We found that alcohol intake did not affect copulation duration, but did reduce female choosiness and weakened the strength of mate preference, as females mated more quickly and with more males after consuming alcohol. Although female genotype significantly affected choosiness, the effects of alcohol were broadly consistent across genotypes. Thus alcohol consumption reduced female choosiness and weakened mate-preference, potentially reducing the strength of sexual selection.
One of the key sources of support for the view that challenging people’s beliefs about free will may undermine moral behavior is a classic study by Vohs and Schooler (2008); seems not replicable
Nadelhoffer, Thomas, Jason Shepard, Damien Crone, Jim A. C. Everett, Brian D. Earp, and Neil Levy. 2019. “Does Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increase Cheating? Reconsidering the Value of Believing in Free Will.” OSF Preprints. May 3. doi:10.31219/osf.io/bhpe5
Abstract: One of the key sources of support for the view that challenging people’s beliefs about free will may undermine moral behavior is a classic study by Vohs and Schooler (2008). These authors reported that exposure to certain prompts suggesting that free will is an illusion increased cheating behavior among study participants. In the present paper, we report several attempts to replicate this influential and widely cited work. Over a series of four high-powered studies (three preregistered) we tested the relationship between (1) anti-free-will prompts and free will beliefs and (2) free will beliefs and immoral behavior. Our primary task was to closely replicate the findings from Vohs and Schooler (2008) using the same or similar manipulations and measurements as the ones used in their original studies. Our efforts were largely unsuccessful. We suggest that manipulating free will beliefs in a robust way is more difficult than has been implied by prior work, and that the proposed link with immoral behavior may be similarly tenuous.
Abstract: One of the key sources of support for the view that challenging people’s beliefs about free will may undermine moral behavior is a classic study by Vohs and Schooler (2008). These authors reported that exposure to certain prompts suggesting that free will is an illusion increased cheating behavior among study participants. In the present paper, we report several attempts to replicate this influential and widely cited work. Over a series of four high-powered studies (three preregistered) we tested the relationship between (1) anti-free-will prompts and free will beliefs and (2) free will beliefs and immoral behavior. Our primary task was to closely replicate the findings from Vohs and Schooler (2008) using the same or similar manipulations and measurements as the ones used in their original studies. Our efforts were largely unsuccessful. We suggest that manipulating free will beliefs in a robust way is more difficult than has been implied by prior work, and that the proposed link with immoral behavior may be similarly tenuous.
From 2016... Little totalitarian enforcers: 3-year-olds were taught the rules of a game, & when a puppet played the game a different way, they corrected him with normative language (“That’s not how it’s done!”)
Young Children See a Single Action and Infer a Social Norm: Promiscuous Normativity in 3-Year-Olds. Marco F. H. Schmidt, Lucas P. Butler, Julia Heinz, and Michael Tomasello. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616661182
Abstract: Human social life depends heavily on social norms that prescribe and proscribe specific actions. Typically, young children learn social norms from adult instruction. In the work reported here, we showed that this is not the whole story: Three-year-old children are promiscuous normativists. In other words, they spontaneously inferred the presence of social norms even when an adult had done nothing to indicate such a norm in either language or behavior. And children of this age even went so far as to enforce these self-inferred norms when third parties “broke” them. These results suggest that children do not just passively acquire social norms from adult behavior and instruction; rather, they have a natural and proactive tendency to go from “is” to “ought.” That is, children go from observed actions to prescribed actions and do not perceive them simply as guidelines for their own behavior but rather as objective normative rules applying to everyone equally.
Keywords: children, cognitive development, cooperation, social cognition, social norms, open materials
Individuals of virtually all social species attempt to influence and control others’ behavior, from threatening aggression to offering mating. But beginning with Homo sapiens sapiens some 200,000 years ago, human social groups—now, cultural groups—created a new form of social control in which the group as a whole communicated collective expectations for individual behavior in the form of social norms. Some social norms regulate, for instance, food distribution or mating and thus reduce interpersonal conflict and foster cooperative group functioning (Boyd & Richerson, 2009; Chudek & Henrich, 2011). But for other social norms, individuals are expected to conform merely to coordinate with other group members or to display their commitment to the group (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Lewis, 1969; Parsons, 1951; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). These conventional norms range from conventional ways of talking, dressing, using artifacts, and preparing food to cultural and religious rituals (Rossano, 2012; Schmidt & Tomasello, 2012; Turiel, 1983).
Young children are born into a world structured by social norms. For the first 3 years, however, they seem to perceive only the expectations that specific other individuals (e.g., their parents) have for their behavior. But from around age 3, children begin to say and do things that indicate a richer understanding of social norms as generic prescriptions and proscriptions coming from something larger than an individual and applying universally to anyone engaging in a certain activity (Nagel, 1986; Rakoczy & Schmidt, 2013; Schmidt & Tomasello, 2012; Smetana & Braeges, 1990). In several recent studies, 3-year-olds were taught the rules of a game, and then when a puppet played the game a different way, they corrected him or even taught him the right way to play it (Rakoczy, Brosche, Warneken, & Tomasello, 2009; Rakoczy, Warneken, & Tomasello, 2008; Schmidt, Rakoczy, & Tomasello, 2011, 2012). They often did this with so-called generic normative language (e.g., “That’s not how it’s done!”). At a very young age, children thus cross over from being targets to being enforcers, and they clearly recognize the generic, even objective, nature of the norms they are enforcing.
All previous studies of young children’s norm learning have exposed them to the norm in a context that suggests the presence of a right way to act. Typically, an adult explicitly teaches children the norm using generic normative language (“This is how it’s done”) and a conventional label (e.g., “This is daxing”; Rakoczy et al., 2008), and the objects are artifacts clearly designed to be used in a normatively prescribed way (Casler, Terziyan, & Greene, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2011). By contrast, in the current two experiments, we explored whether children who see adults performing actions might overinterpret those actions as instantiated generic social norms, even without any teaching, language, or artifacts. Young children have been shown to be promiscuous imitators who overimitate actions irrelevant to an instrumental goal (Lyons, Young, & Keil, 2007; McGuigan, Whiten, Flynn, & Horner, 2007; Nielsen & Tomaselli, 2010) and promiscuous teleologists who overattribute purposeful design to natural kinds (Kelemen, 1999, 2004). In the experiments reported here, we investigated the possibility that they are also promiscuous normativists who overattribute objective social norms when there actually are none.
In two experiments, 3-year-old children saw an adult spontaneously perform a novel action with some materials, and then they saw a puppet perform a different action, with the same materials, that had the same result. This gave the children the opportunity to spontaneously intervene and protest if they perceived the action as normatively wrong (Rakoczy et al., 2008; Schmidt et al., 2011). The modeled action was arbitrary, without obvious purpose, and thus rather open to overinterpretation in terms of the way something is done (as in “This is how we do it!”; Schmidt & Tomasello, 2012; Searle, 1995). To investigate the key question, we manipulated both the manner of demonstration (between participants) and the type of materials (within participants) used in that demonstration. Prior research suggested that children readily learn generic and normative knowledge in both pedagogical and nonpedagogical contexts (Butler & Markman, 2012, 2014, 2016; Butler, Schmidt, Bürgel, & Tomasello, 2015; Butler & Tomasello, 2016; Csibra & Gergely, 2009, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2011; Vredenburgh, Kushnir, & Casasola, 2015); accordingly, children saw the identical action performed by an adult, either (a) pedagogically for their benefit or (b) intentionally or accidentally by a stranger in an incidental observation.
In Experiment 1, each child saw the adult spontaneously fishing objects out of her bag. The adult used a tool, either an artifact (e.g., a human-made object with a hook), from which the child could infer a conventional purpose, or a natural “tool” (e.g., a branch that happened to be usable as a hook) that suggested no conventional purpose. In Experiment 2, we went a step further, stripping away all of the cues—both in the objects themselves and in the social-pragmatic context—that might suggest a norm. We did so by using purposeless junk objects that the adult spontaneously took out of a trash bag (not out of her own bag). The trash bag was filled with junk objects that were incidentally found on the child’s chair in the beginning of the experiment. We predicted that in both experiments, regardless of whether the objects had a conventional purpose, children would infer a social norm from a single intentional action and would thus protest more when the action was pedagogical or intentional than when it was accidental.
Abstract: Human social life depends heavily on social norms that prescribe and proscribe specific actions. Typically, young children learn social norms from adult instruction. In the work reported here, we showed that this is not the whole story: Three-year-old children are promiscuous normativists. In other words, they spontaneously inferred the presence of social norms even when an adult had done nothing to indicate such a norm in either language or behavior. And children of this age even went so far as to enforce these self-inferred norms when third parties “broke” them. These results suggest that children do not just passively acquire social norms from adult behavior and instruction; rather, they have a natural and proactive tendency to go from “is” to “ought.” That is, children go from observed actions to prescribed actions and do not perceive them simply as guidelines for their own behavior but rather as objective normative rules applying to everyone equally.
Keywords: children, cognitive development, cooperation, social cognition, social norms, open materials
Individuals of virtually all social species attempt to influence and control others’ behavior, from threatening aggression to offering mating. But beginning with Homo sapiens sapiens some 200,000 years ago, human social groups—now, cultural groups—created a new form of social control in which the group as a whole communicated collective expectations for individual behavior in the form of social norms. Some social norms regulate, for instance, food distribution or mating and thus reduce interpersonal conflict and foster cooperative group functioning (Boyd & Richerson, 2009; Chudek & Henrich, 2011). But for other social norms, individuals are expected to conform merely to coordinate with other group members or to display their commitment to the group (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Lewis, 1969; Parsons, 1951; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). These conventional norms range from conventional ways of talking, dressing, using artifacts, and preparing food to cultural and religious rituals (Rossano, 2012; Schmidt & Tomasello, 2012; Turiel, 1983).
Young children are born into a world structured by social norms. For the first 3 years, however, they seem to perceive only the expectations that specific other individuals (e.g., their parents) have for their behavior. But from around age 3, children begin to say and do things that indicate a richer understanding of social norms as generic prescriptions and proscriptions coming from something larger than an individual and applying universally to anyone engaging in a certain activity (Nagel, 1986; Rakoczy & Schmidt, 2013; Schmidt & Tomasello, 2012; Smetana & Braeges, 1990). In several recent studies, 3-year-olds were taught the rules of a game, and then when a puppet played the game a different way, they corrected him or even taught him the right way to play it (Rakoczy, Brosche, Warneken, & Tomasello, 2009; Rakoczy, Warneken, & Tomasello, 2008; Schmidt, Rakoczy, & Tomasello, 2011, 2012). They often did this with so-called generic normative language (e.g., “That’s not how it’s done!”). At a very young age, children thus cross over from being targets to being enforcers, and they clearly recognize the generic, even objective, nature of the norms they are enforcing.
All previous studies of young children’s norm learning have exposed them to the norm in a context that suggests the presence of a right way to act. Typically, an adult explicitly teaches children the norm using generic normative language (“This is how it’s done”) and a conventional label (e.g., “This is daxing”; Rakoczy et al., 2008), and the objects are artifacts clearly designed to be used in a normatively prescribed way (Casler, Terziyan, & Greene, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2011). By contrast, in the current two experiments, we explored whether children who see adults performing actions might overinterpret those actions as instantiated generic social norms, even without any teaching, language, or artifacts. Young children have been shown to be promiscuous imitators who overimitate actions irrelevant to an instrumental goal (Lyons, Young, & Keil, 2007; McGuigan, Whiten, Flynn, & Horner, 2007; Nielsen & Tomaselli, 2010) and promiscuous teleologists who overattribute purposeful design to natural kinds (Kelemen, 1999, 2004). In the experiments reported here, we investigated the possibility that they are also promiscuous normativists who overattribute objective social norms when there actually are none.
In two experiments, 3-year-old children saw an adult spontaneously perform a novel action with some materials, and then they saw a puppet perform a different action, with the same materials, that had the same result. This gave the children the opportunity to spontaneously intervene and protest if they perceived the action as normatively wrong (Rakoczy et al., 2008; Schmidt et al., 2011). The modeled action was arbitrary, without obvious purpose, and thus rather open to overinterpretation in terms of the way something is done (as in “This is how we do it!”; Schmidt & Tomasello, 2012; Searle, 1995). To investigate the key question, we manipulated both the manner of demonstration (between participants) and the type of materials (within participants) used in that demonstration. Prior research suggested that children readily learn generic and normative knowledge in both pedagogical and nonpedagogical contexts (Butler & Markman, 2012, 2014, 2016; Butler, Schmidt, Bürgel, & Tomasello, 2015; Butler & Tomasello, 2016; Csibra & Gergely, 2009, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2011; Vredenburgh, Kushnir, & Casasola, 2015); accordingly, children saw the identical action performed by an adult, either (a) pedagogically for their benefit or (b) intentionally or accidentally by a stranger in an incidental observation.
In Experiment 1, each child saw the adult spontaneously fishing objects out of her bag. The adult used a tool, either an artifact (e.g., a human-made object with a hook), from which the child could infer a conventional purpose, or a natural “tool” (e.g., a branch that happened to be usable as a hook) that suggested no conventional purpose. In Experiment 2, we went a step further, stripping away all of the cues—both in the objects themselves and in the social-pragmatic context—that might suggest a norm. We did so by using purposeless junk objects that the adult spontaneously took out of a trash bag (not out of her own bag). The trash bag was filled with junk objects that were incidentally found on the child’s chair in the beginning of the experiment. We predicted that in both experiments, regardless of whether the objects had a conventional purpose, children would infer a social norm from a single intentional action and would thus protest more when the action was pedagogical or intentional than when it was accidental.