Men's sociosexuality: No clear relationships between steroid hormones & self-reported sexual desire or sociosexual orientation; greater desire for casual sex only with relatively low average cortisol

Stern, Julia, Konstantina Karastoyanova, Michal Kandrik, Jaimie S. Torrance, Amanda Hahn, Iris J. Holzleitner, Lisa M. DeBruine, et al. 2019. “Are Sexual Desire and Sociosexual Orientation Related to Men’s Salivary Steroid Hormones?.” PsyArXiv. November 18. doi:10.31234/osf.io/42t6e

Abstract: Although it is widely assumed that men’s sexual desire and interest in casual sex (i.e., sociosexual orientation) are linked to steroid hormone levels, evidence for such associations is mixed. Consequently, we tested for both longitudinal and cross-sectional relationships between salivary testosterone, cortisol, reported sexual desire and sociosexuality in a sample of 61 young adult men, each of whom was tested weekly on up to five occasions. Longitudinal analyses showed no clear relationships between steroid hormones and self-reported sexual desire or sociosexual orientation. Cross-sectional analyses showed no significant associations between average hormone levels and self-reported sexual desire. However, some aspects of sociosexuality, most notably desire for casual sex, were related to men’s average hormone levels. Men with higher average testosterone reported greater desire for casual sex, but only if they also had relatively low average cortisol. These results support a Dual Hormone account of men’s sociosexuality, in which the combined effects of testosterone and cortisol predict the extent of men’s interest in casual sex.

Discussion

Our analyses showed no clear effects of within-subject changes in men’s
testosterone, cortisol, or their interaction on any aspects of sociosexuality or
sexual desire. There was a weak negative effect of current cortisol on
sociosexual desire, but this was not robust to correction for multiple tests
(uncorrected p-value = .044). Thus, we did not replicate Raisanen et al’s
(2018) recent finding that within-subject changes in men’s solitary, but not
dyadic, sexual desire track changes in their testosterone and cortisol.
However, our null results for sociosexuality and within-subject changes in
men’s testosterone are consistent with similar null results reported by Gettler
et al. (2019). While our results support the recent proposal that changes in
endogenous steroid hormones contribute little (if at all) to within-subject
changes in men’s sociosexuality (Gettler et al., 2019), they do not support the
claim that endogenous steroid hormones contribute to the regulation of men’s
sexual desire (Raisanen et al., 2018).

Our analyses of responses on the SDI-2 also showed no significant crosssectional
associations between aspects of men’s sexual desire and average
steroid hormones. Thus, we did not replicate previous findings in which men
with higher average testosterone reported greater solitary sexual desire (Das
& Sawin, 2016; van Anders & Dunn, 2009). However, the null results for
cross-sectional associations between aspects of men’s sexual desire and
steroid hormones are consistent with similar null results that have been
reported in other studies (van Anders et al., 2007; van Anders, 2012).
Collectively, these results suggest that associations between average steroid
hormone levels and sexual desire in men are not robust.

Some previous studies have reported that men with higher average
testosterone levels score higher on sociosexual desire (Edelstein et al., 2011;
Puts et al., 2015), but lower on sociosexual behavior (Puts et al., 2015).
These results have been interpreted as evidence for a feedback loop in which
rising testosterone levels increase sociosexual desire, but that engaging in
sexual behavior causes men’s testosterone levels to fall (Puts et al., 2015).
Neither our longitudinal nor cross-sectional analyses of men’s sociosexuality
support this proposal. However, our null results for sociosexuality and men’s
average testosterone levels are consistent with similar null results reported in
other studies (Kordsmeyer et al., 2018; van Anders et al., 2007).
Intriguingly, we found that average testosterone was positively related to
sociosexual attitudes, sociosexual desires, and global sociosexual orientation
(i.e., total scores on the SOI-R) among men with relatively low cortisol.

Although we did not predict this result, we note here that the interactions
between average testosterone and average cortisol for sociosexual attitudes
and global sociosexual orientation would be significant even if Bonferroni
corrected for multiple comparisons. Some previous research suggests that the
combination of high testosterone and low cortisol is associated with status
related behaviors (see Mehta & Prasad, 2015, for a review of this Dual Hormone Hypothesis).
If this is the case, our results present preliminary
evidence that attitudes to uncommitted sexual relationships might be similarly
related to high testosterone and low cortisol. Further research would be
necessary to shed further light on this possibility. Previous studies
investigating possible associations between steroid hormones and men’s
sociosexuality may not have detected these relationships because they did
not consider the interaction between average testosterone and average
cortisol (Kordsmeyer et al., 2018; van Anders et al., 2007).
Strengths of the current study include the longitudinal analyses and
consideration of testosterone, cortisol, and their interactions. However, there
are limitations that could be addressed in future work. For example,
replicating the cross-sectional findings for sociosexuality in a larger sample
may clarify whether our results are robust or false positives.

In conclusion, we did not replicate previous results linking aspects of men’s
sexual desire to their steroid hormones. However, we did find evidence that
aspects of men’s sociosexual orientation, most notably their attitude to casual
sex, was predicted by the interaction between average testosterone and
average cortisol. Men with higher average testosterone levels reported more
positive attitudes to casual sex, but only if they also had relatively low average
cortisol. While such a pattern of results is arguably consistent with the Dual
Hormone Hypothesis of men’s competitive behaviors, further work is needed
to establish whether this pattern of results is robust.

Designing Central Bank Digital Currencies: Optimal CBDC trades off bank intermediation against the social value of maintaining diverse payment instruments

Designing Central Bank Digital Currencies. Itai Agur; Anil Ari; Giovanni Dell'Ariccia. IMF Working Paper No. 19/252, November 18, 2019. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/11/18/Designing-Central-Bank-Digital-Currencies-48739?cid=em-COM-123-39746

Summary: We study the optimal design of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) in an environment where agents sort into cash, CBDC and bank deposits according to their preferences over anonymity and security; and where network effects make the convenience of payment instruments dependent on the number of their users. CBDC can be designed with attributes similar to cash or deposits, and can be interest-bearing: a CBDC that closely competes with deposits depresses bank credit and output, while a cash-like CBDC may lead to the disappearance of cash. Then, the optimal CBDC design trades off bank intermediation against the social value of maintaining diverse payment instruments. When network effects matter, an interest-bearing CBDC alleviates the central bank's tradeoff.

Before they begin to speak, infants have already forged a link between language & core cognitive capacities; humans establish reference, convey information declaratively & pass down communicative devices via cultural transmission

Becoming human: human infants link language and cognition, but what about the other great apes? Miriam A. Novack and Sandra Waxman. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, November 18 2019. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0408

Abstract: Human language has no parallel elsewhere in the animal kingdom. It is unique not only for its structural complexity but also for its inextricable interface with core cognitive capacities such as object representation, object categorization and abstract rule learning. Here, we (i) review recent evidence documenting how (and how early) language interacts with these core cognitive capacities in the mind of the human infant, and (ii) consider whether this link exists in non-human great apes—our closest genealogical cousins. Research with human infants demonstrates that well before they begin to speak, infants have already forged a link between language and core cognitive capacities. Evident by just three months of age, this language–cognition link unfolds in a rich developmental cascade, with each advance providing the foundation for subsequent, more precise and more powerful links. This link supports our species' capacity to represent and convey abstract concepts and to communicate beyond the immediate here and now. By contrast, although the communication systems of great apes are sophisticated in their own right, there is no conclusive evidence that apes establish reference, convey information declaratively or pass down communicative devices via cultural transmission. Thus, the evidence currently available reinforces the uniqueness of human language and the power of its interface to cognition.

---
3 Beyond humans: gestural communication among non-human great apes

Our goal in this last section is to look beyond human infants andconsider the communicative abilities of the other great apes.

Like humans, apes use a range of communicative signals—including vocalizations, facial expressions and gestures—toconvey information and to influence the behaviour of others[75]. There has been substantial research on primate vocaliza-tions,  much  of  it  focusing  specifically  on  vocalizationsproduced in the context of evolutionarily urgent survival func-tions such as responding to predators and communicatingsources of food [76,77]. Certainly, these vocalizations areimpressive and some have argued that they reflect a varietyof sophisticated cognitive and social functions [78–81]. But others have argued that ape gestures—more than their vocalizations—provide the most compelling comparisons tohuman language [82–85]. Therefore, we focus primarily onape gesture and its communicative status in comparison tohuman language and human gesture.



(a) The gestural repertoires of apes

Gestures are part of the communicative repertoires of allspecies of great apes [75]. Typically emerging at around ninemonths of age [86,87], these gestures are produced deliberatelyand voluntarily in social interactions [88–90]. Ape gestureshave been defined as‘discrete, mechanically ineffective phys-ical movements of the body observed during periods ofcommunication’[88, p. 749] and include tactile gestures (invol-ving bodily contact with another individual, e.g. hittinganother), auditory gestures (incorporating non-vocal sounds,e.g. stomping) and visible gestures (those can be seen from adistance, e.g. arm raising) [75,88,90]. Note that within the apeand human literatures, the definition of what constitutes a gesture often differs; definitions of human gesture tend to focusprimarily on silent, empty-handed movements that make nophysical contact with objects or other people (see [91] for a dis-cussion of differences in definition and coding). Nevertheless,important cross-species comparisons can be made.

Most researchers agree that apes’gestures share two key features with those of humans’gestures: flexibility and inten-tionality [13,88,90,92–94]. Regarding flexibility, apes producea variety of gesture types (e.g. arm raise; poke; object shake)flexibly across different situations (e.g. affiliation, grooming,resting, social play). They can use a single gesture typeacross multiple contexts, as well as multiple gesture typeswithin a single context [7]. Regarding intentionality, apes’ges-tures are often responsive to the attentional states of theirwould-be communicative partners: for instance, when theintended partner is looking elsewhere, chimps tend to initiateby making physical contact (touching the other) and auditorygestures (banging on the ground) [88,95].

(b) How do ape gestures differ from human gestures?

Like humans, the gestures of apes reveal an intention tocommunicate and insight into the attentional states of theirconspecifics. But apes’gestures also differ considerablyfrom those of humans. Most striking are species differencesin the presence versus absence of (i) pointing and the estab-lishment of reference, (ii) gesturing for declarative purposes,(iii) communicating without contextual support, and (iv) evi-dence for learning processes and developmental cascades.

Together, these differences raise intriguing questions aboutwhether the communicative systems of apes link to their core cognitive capacities, as is the case for humans.First, apes in the wild do not use pointing gestures to com-municate with conspecifics [96–100]. In one comparative study,researchers used the same criteria to characterize spontaneousreferential gestures produced by 1- to 2-year-old human children and chimpanzees in natural settings. Among children,nearly 25% of the gestures produced were classified as potentially referential (e.g. directed to an external location or third party). Among chimpanzees, fewer than 0.1% of their gestures met this criterion [91]. Human-reared or human-captive apes can be taught to use pointing gestures; however, these points typically occur only in communication with humans and only in contexts where the goal is to convey imperative information, typically a request for food [101–106].

Second, beyond the case of pointing, ape gestures appear tobe reserved exclusively for imperative purposes. They gestureto regulate face-to-face interactions in the here-and-now suchas play, grooming, fighting or tandem travel [98]. For example,most gestures between apes are produced in dyadic contexts,aimed to get the attention of a would-be social partner [107].

There is little to no evidence that apes gesture declaratively to direct another’s attention simply for the sake of sharing interest in it or commenting on it. By contrast, human infants frequently gesture for declarative purposes, sharing their intentions with their carers [48,98,102].

Third, ape gestures are considerably more dependent on thecontextual support of the present than are those of human chil-dren. Although both children and captive apes can use gesture to refer to non-present entities (i.e. they can point to an empty plate that used to contain food), these gestures are still dependent on referencing present objects (i.e. the now-empty plate)[104–106]. In wild ape populations, spontaneous gestures typically require the use of a present object. For example, to request‘play’, an ape may hit a conspecific; to request ‘being carried’ a juvenile may place their hand on their mother’sback.

Humans, too, can use contextual support to express ideas via gesture (e.g. pointing to an object that we want). Yet, in addition,we also ubiquitously gesture in the absence of any referent object, (e.g. using one’s hands to describe the shape of a missing puzzle piece; demonstrating how to cut with scissors, even when none are present). There is no clear evidence of this typeof iconic gesture production in apes [108].

Fourth, there is little evidence that ape gestural repertoiresare readily learned through imitation or through cultural trans-mission [88,93,98,109–111]. Instead, the ape gestural repertoireconsists primarily of species-typical behaviours [88–90]. Somehave interpreted the scant variability in gestural repertoire sacross groups of apes as evidence that ape gestures areinnate, acquired primarily through genetic transmission[88,93]. Others have claimed that certain types of ape gesturesare adaptations of full-fledged actions to create a more restricted gestural form that will elicit a target behaviour, a process known as ontogenetic ritualization [111]. For example, to request a climb on its mother’s back, infants first push down her rear end to gain access to climb. But over time, this behaviour is streamlined: to elicit the response, the infant need only touch the mother’s back [112]. Certainly, this process involves learning, but the learning occurs only in that particular interaction in that dyad concerning that action.

Finally, there are dramatic differences in the developmental course of gesture systems among apes and humans. The most striking difference is that in humans, early gestures are integrated spontaneously into a rapidly burgeoning linguistic system; this system is at once more comprehensive in its communicative and symbolic reach and more precise in itsexpression than the systems observed among apes. Humaninfants initially rely heavily on gestures but this reliance decreases steadily [52,56]. As their linguistic capacities advance, infants move systematically from producing gestures alone toproducing gesture + language (and then language + language) combinations. By contrast, apes’ reliance on gesture for communication does not seem to change, even among apes trained by humans to acquire new symbolic signals [113].

Certainly, there are cases in which apes, raises by humans,learn complex symbol systems including spoken words,pictograms or sign language [114–119] (see [120] for a comprehensive review and discussion of the many controversies surrounding this topic). In such cases, learning to use discrete symbols is achieved only with considerable repetition or reward-based paradigms. Evidence like this offers insightinto the capabilities of the ape mind, given a set of symbols.

Nevertheless, we are cautious in drawing strong conclusions from these examples, as they are rare and have been observed only as a result of human intervention.The fact that apes are capable of learning new symbols ystems speaks to their impressive intelligence, and to the obvious evolutionary links between the ape brain and the human brain. Additionally, there is evidence that some language-trained apes can successfully group novel exemplars into lexical categories, raising the intriguing possibility that learning human-like abstract symbols may support object categorization in non-human apes [121]. However, it typically takes apes manytrials of learning with rewards to acquire basic use of these symbols. Note that this differs from how human infants spontaneously acquire language, as well as how they can easily adapt novel symbols as category markers or object labels, given only a single session of seeing these symbols embedded in a communicative interaction [21,23]. One perhaps important counter-example bears mention: two infant bonobos, Kanzi and Makula, may have spontaneously learned symbols on which their mother had previously been trained [118,119]).

Even for an ape that has mastered productive use of a signal system with their human trainers, there are sharp boundary conditions on their use. Language-trained apes use acquired symbol systems almost exclusively for imperative purposes in interactions with humans [122,123]. Furthermore,in stark contrast to humans, there seems to be an upper limit toapes’combinatorial abilities. Even language-trained apes overwhelmingly produce symbols in isolation; the virtual absence of combinations that exceed two symbols reveals a compelling difference between children and apes [124].

Taken together, the existing evidence reveals that althoughapes in the wild show impressive usage of communicativegestures, produced intentionally and with flexibility, these ges-ture systems differ dramatically from human communication (for a more nuanced discussion, see [88]). They do not makeuse of pointing gestures, gesture for imperative purposes only, typically require present context to gesture, do not pass down their gestures through cultural transmission, and do not undergo significant developmental shifts in gesture use.

Finally, despite the fact that some apes have, with great training, learned a limited set of human-like symbol systems, their learning processes are distinct from human language learning and their use of these symbols is largely limited.

Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom‐line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour

Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom‐line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Gabi Eissa, Rebecca Wyland, Scott W. Lester, Ritu Gupta. Human Resource Management Journal, May 23 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12241
 
Abstract: This study seeks to advance the bottom‐line mentality literature by exploring an antecedent and outcome of employee bottom‐line mentality. We build and test a moderated‐mediation model by arguing that the personality trait of Machiavellianism promotes an employee's adoption of a bottom‐line mentality. Moreover, drawing on trait activation theory, we argue that this relationship is fully activated when the employee perceives that the organisation endorses a bottom‐line mentality. To expand our theoretical model, we also suggest that employee bottom‐line mentality inhibits organisational citizenship behaviour directed towards co‐workers. Lastly, we investigate whether an employee's perception of an organisation's bottom‐line mentality conditionally moderates the indirect effect of Machiavellianism on organisational citizenship behaviour directed towards co‐workers through the mediated mechanism of employee bottom‐line mentality. Our theoretical model is tested across two distinct studies. Study 1, a field study conducted within a variety of organisations, provides evidence for our initial predictions (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Study 2, a multisource field study conducted in multiple industries, replicates and extends the findings from Study 1 by providing evidence for the entire moderated‐mediation model. We find support for our hypothesised model across both studies. Implications for theory and practice are discussed, and suggestions for future research are identified.

4 | DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current investigation was to build and test a model of both antecedents and consequences of employee BLM. In Study 1, we examined the interaction effect of Machiavellianism and employee perception of an organisation's BLM onto employee BLM. Using trait activation theory, the findings from Study 1 found that Machiavellianism was positively related to employee BLM, and the employee perception of an organisation's BLM
amplified this relationship, suggesting that both Machiavellianism and employee perception of an organisation's BLM are highly associated with employee BLM. Moreover, Study 2 replicated the findings from Study 1 and further examined how employee BLM is likely to be associated with low levels of OCBI, suggesting that employee perception of the organisation's BLM may serve as a conditional moderator of the Machiavellianism–employee BLM–OCBI relationship. As expected, our moderated‐mediation model (Figure 1) was supported by the findings across two distinct studies, providing insights as to why and when employee BLM is promoted and a potential consequence that ensues.

This research provides a theoretical foundation that will facilitate future examinations of the construct of BLM. Although previous research suggests that developing a BLM may be detrimental to organisations and its members (Greenbaum et al., 2012), our research represents a departure from the current BLM research (e.g., Bonner et al., 2017; Mawritz et al., 2017) to help identify reasons that prompt employees to fully express this mentality. Our goal was to identify a personality trait that is associated with self‐interest; because self‐interest is typically associated with developing a BLM (Eissa, Wyland, & Gupta, 2018; Greenbaum et al., 2012). Machiavellianism is a personality trait often associated with cynicism and a focus on the self (Dahling et al., 2009). Therefore, in this research, we argue that employee BLM may occur when employees possess the dark personality trait of Machiavellianism, though not all employees are equally likely to have this dark predisposition activated in the same way.

To examine a boundary condition of the Machiavellianism and employee BLM relationship, we drew on trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) and arguments from prior research (e.g., Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) to build a theoretical model that accounts for levels of employee perceptions of an organisation's BLM. This investigation adds to prior research employing trait activation theory (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2017) suggesting that environmental cues may activate or even enhance a personality tendency within employees. In other words, the Machiavellianism personality trait may be fully prompted when employees perceive that the environment of their organisation aligns with their own self‐interested, controlling, manipulative, and distrustful nature. As such, we argued that employees with high levels of Machiavellianism are more likely to pay attention to information within their environment that endorses their own self‐goals. Overall, our findings offer a credible contribution to theory by suggesting Machiavellianism as a key component influencing the expression of employee BLM. Furthermore, our study is among the first to advance the literature by exploring a boundary condition that influences the impact of Machiavellianism on employee BLM, namely perceptions of
organisation's BLM.

Consistent with prior research that calls for an examination of consequences of employee BLM (Greenbaum et al.,
2012), this current investigation explored the notion that employee BLM may inhibit employee engagement in positive behaviours such as OCBIs. We relied on prior BLM research (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2012; Sims & Brinkmann, 2002, 2003; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999; Wolfe, 1988) to argue that employee BLM can encourage a narrowly focused, unidimensional, game‐like mentality among employees. Those who have this mentality are more likely to become driven to see others lose and less likely to engage in behaviours that may help others succeed. The current investigation is important because BLM is common and likely to affect how employees approach interpersonal work relationships as well as their willingness to be cooperative with others, which are key determinants of long‐term organisational success and survival (Piccolo et al., 2012). This way, the current research contributes to the literature by offering empirical support for the link between employee BLM and OCBI—a relationship that is frequently discussed in the literature but has received little empirical attention despite its strong theoretical presumption. Altogether, the theoretical underpinnings of the current investigation enabled us to contribute to the BLM literature by presenting a moderated‐mediation model that explains why and when employee BLM is likely to occur and subsequently reduce cooperation among employees at work.


4.1 | Managerial implications

Although many organisations are in business to achieve success, an exclusive, the‐ends‐justify‐the‐means focus on bottom‐line outcomes can lead to negative consequences. The popular press features numerous reports of the problems that can arise when employees adopt a BLM. Earlier in this paper, we used the Enron scandal as an illustration. Another example is the use of subprime mortgage lending in an effort to circumvent capital requirements (Stiglitz, 2010). Clearly, when bottom‐line outcomes (e.g., profit) are valued over everything else, it may encourage employees to act in their own self‐interest, even if it involves engagement in unethical behaviours (Greenbaum et al., 2012) or refraining from positive ones that hinder their own goal attainment. Although delivering results is key to success, employers must comprehend that a narrow, unidimensional focus on achieving results (i.e., BLM) is not ideal and that, to be effective, organisations must create a workplace environment that not only focuses on achieving bottom‐line outcomes, but also fosters positive and moral behaviours. When employees avoid opportunities to collaborate and help each other out, the implication is that the likelihood of teamwork and synergy is greatly diminished. Hence, the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation is likely to be compromised. Therefore, organisations need to be aware of the adverse influence of employee BLM on collaboration and teamwork. This awareness will allow organisations to create a workplace environment that values a variety of important organisational outcomes so that the chances of overall company success are amplified.

Another implication of the current findings is that the personality trait of Machiavellianism is related to the likelihood of falling prey to a BLM, especially when working in an environment that is perceived to value and prioritise achieving the bottom line over everything else. We found that Machs are more likely to adopt a BLM and less likely to engage in OCBI. Employers and human resource managers who are involved in the hiring process could pay attention to personality traits such as Machiavellianism and try to avoid hiring those who tend to have a cynical outlook and a heightened focus on self‐interest. The current findings suggest that Machs would likely embrace an environment of unhealthy competition in the presence of a perceived BLM in an organisation. As discussed, Machs' efforts to succeed or get ahead would likely come at the expense of the long‐term health of the organisation.


4.2 | Limitations and future research

Although the current research makes multiple noteworthy contributions to the literature, it is not without limitations. First, cross‐sectional data were collected in both of our studies, which may limit definitive conclusions regarding the causality among the proposed relationships. However, we have utilised two distinct samples and relied on well-documented theories to provide evidence for the direction of our variables. Nonetheless, future research could replicate our model by using various research methods including collecting longitudinal data or conducting experimental designs to provide further support for our model. Second, we examined OCBs directed at organisational members, namely co‐workers, as a form of positive and moral behaviour that could be limited by employee BLM. We focused on OCB directed towards organisational members because previous BLM research suggests that BLM impacts interpersonal relationships (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2012; Wolfe, 1988). Although this made theoretical sense, it would be interesting if future studies examined citizenship behaviours directed towards the organisation as a whole (i.e., OCBOs) to see if any differences exist based on the target of these behaviours. For example, whereas some OCBs are driven by a desire to make the organisation better, other forms of OCBs are less altruistic and more calculative in nature (e.g., OCBs that are completed as a means of impression management; e.g., Bolino, 1999). Thus, it is plausible that employee BLM might increase some types of OCBOs because these employees are trying to impress their employer by giving back to the organisation. However, it is also plausible that employees who possess a BLM might ignore OCBOs because they are so focused on their own bottom‐line outcomes that they essentially ignore all types of OCBs. Either way, a more complete understanding of the relationships between different types of OCBs and employee BLM would be informative.

Our research supported Machiavellianism as an antecedent of individual adoption of BLM. Yet, this is but one antecedent. Future research should examine other potential antecedents of employee BLM. For example, the presence of incentive pay may also help predict BLM. When incentive pay exists, one would expect that a singular focus on monetary rewards, particularly among those motivated by pay, should increase the likelihood of a BLM. Furthermore, whether incentives are determined at the individual, group, or organisational level should impact whether a BLM develops. Specifically, we would expect a BLM to be more prevalent when individual incentives are used. Group and organisational level incentives frequently require some type of collaboration, which is at odds with the notion of having to defeat your colleagues in order to win. In sum, future research would benefit from exploring additional antecedents of BLM to help answer the question of why employees adopt such mentality.

Additionally, the concept of perception of organisation's BLM may be within the same nomological network as other constructs. For example, (un)ethical climate or transactional psychological contracts (e.g., Zagenczyk et al., 2014) may reveal similar relationships to the constructs presented in our proposed model. Therefore, future research could further explore the relationships between perceived organisation's BLM and other similar constructs to gain a better understanding of the theoretical and empirical distinctions that may exist. Finally, future researchers could move the literature forward by exploring additional moderators that might mitigate (or exacerbate) the dysfunctional relationship between Machiavellianism, employee BLM, and reductions in OCBI. For example, we argued that Machs “will do whatever it takes” to achieve success. As such, it can also be theorised that individuals high in Machiavellianism may at times perform seemingly altruistic behaviours for the sole reason of creating the impression that the recipient needed the help and is incapable of performing the job. This would suggest a positive relationship between BLM and OCBI. Our results indicate a rather low (but significant) relationship. This could be interpreted as an indication of the existence of moderators. Although this is beyond the scope of the current article, it is one potentially fruitful area for future research. One promising moderator might be ethical leadership. Ethical leadership is “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two‐way communication, reinforcement, and decision‐making” (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005, p. 120).

As noted by Piccolo et al. (2012), “ethical leadership may be effective in preventing a nearly exclusive focus on bottom‐line outcomes” (p. 295). Thus, ethical leadership likely weakens the proposed relationships presented in our model. Future research would benefit from exploring this assertion and additional moderators that may explain antecedents and consequences of BLM as presented in Figure 1. In conclusion, we encourage future research to build on these first steps by taking a more comprehensive look at the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of employee BLM as this field of research moves forward.

Efficiency of using Tinder to meet potential long-term committed relationship partners or acquire one-night stands

Hook, Line and Sinker: Do Tinder Matches and Meet Ups Lead to One-Night Stands? Trond Viggo Grøntvedt, Mons Bendixen, Ernst O. Botnen, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair. Evolutionary Psychological Science, November 18 2019. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-019-00222-z

Abstract: Several recent papers have established a link between personality and Tinder use, particularly with regards to sociosexuality and motivations for use. Following up our recent publication on dating apps and the studies linking Tinder and sociosexuality, we provide a more detailed investigation of the efficiency of using Tinder to acquire one-night stands or meet potential long-term committed relationship partners. Using self-reported data from 269 students (62% women), we find that a very large number of matches are required for a relative small number of meet ups, and result in a very limited number of hook-ups or potential romantic partner meetings. Merely 20% of the Tinder users in the sample have had one-night stands following Tinder use, and the majority of these only had one extra partner. The primary individual difference predictor of achieving casual sex using Tinder is unrestricted sociosexual attitudes, and this also predicts fewer potential romantic partner meetings.

Keywords: Sociosexuality Tinder Casual sex Committed relationships

Discussion

Tinder is an app that promises to ease the search and acquisition of new romantic mates, both long-term, and short-term.Further, in the media moralistic worries that Tinder is causing a spread of social disease have been aired (Rhode Island Government 2015). The current study investigates to what degree Tinder use actually results in more sexual partnersand romantic opportunities based on number of matches andmeet ups.

Contrary to expectations, number of one-night stands out-side Tinder use showed only a weak positive association withnumber of one-night stands following Tinder. When control-ling for length of use and age, there was no effect of one-nightstands outside of Tinder use on one-night stands followingTinder. In the final model, controlling for sociosexuality,matches and meet ups, the effect was actually negative.Botnen et al. (2018) and Sevi (2019a) suggested that datingapps such as Tinder are merely a new arena for evolved short-term sexual behavior, rather than a facilitator of new sexual behaviors. Given the current results, we suggest that Tinder indeed seems to provide new sexual opportunities, but mostlyfor a very small minority. Of the 54 participants who reported one-night stands following Tinder use, only 7 individuals reported no one-night stands outside of Tinder use. However,the general claim still holds for the majority of Tinder users.For those who are most successful outside of Tinder, Tinder adds few extra short-term sexual encounters. A small numberof individuals who are unsuccessful in more traditional datingarenas may turn to Tinder in order to have short-term sexualrelations. Based on the ratio of matches to meetings to sexualencounters, Tinder may not be described as a sex app thatlargely increases the number of one-night stands and hook-ups, at least not in our sample. Despite this, Tinder, as a newarena for mating effort, may still be considered highly efficientfrom an evolutionary perspective. There are almost no costsinvolved apart from the time spent, and one may indicateinterest in a multitude of partners by swiping right in a veryshort time. Most meetings do not lead to one-night stands.There is a potential mismatch between cues used to decideto swipe right and the short-term attractiveness perceived ina face-to-face meeting. Information provided by the short bi-ography, picture, and age are highly relevant; however, otherevolutionary relevant cues for assessing casual sex attractive-ness are only available in a physical meeting. Further, andreflecting the above, individuals who are efficient in tradition-al mating arenas, may therefore acquire more partners through displaying the kind of personality (Schmitt and Shackelford 2008), confidence, physical bodily (Provost et al.2008), and facial features (Li and Kenrick2006;Littleetal.2002)andmaybe even voice cues (Puts2005) that are attractive in short-term matings face-to-face rather than via non-organic, electronic Tinder profiles.

There is an effect of meet ups on one-night stands, but notof matches over and above the effect of meet ups. In addition,both age and sociosexual attitudes consistently predicted number of one-night stands following Tinder. One might argue thatswiping right and hence indicating interest in a potential partner on an app is less time consuming and that one avoids the more distressing rejections than when actively engaging withpeople in real life. However, those who succeed in traditional hook up arenas, in physical interactions, where both partiesare in the mood and with some degree of intoxication, willperhaps not succeed more by adding Tinder. Swiping and searching on Tinder may have limited effect, and as such may not be considered cost efficient. A large number of matches are required in order to achieve a sexual encounter.

This challenges the suggestion that Tinder is a sex app that iscontributing to a general increase in the amount of casual sexand social diseases in society and number of sexual partners for users directly (Rhode Island Governmen t2015).Tinder is neither a very efficient way of meeting a long-termcommitted romantic partner. Women, more than men, meet morepeople with an interest for potential long-term committed rela-tionships. Parallel to other recent findings of sociosexuality andTinder use (Hallam et al. 2018; Sevietal.2018), the statistica leffect of sex on number of meet ups with the interest for a long-term committed romantic relationship was partly accounted forby the attitudes component of the sociosexual orientation inven-tory. A careful interpretation of the effect of the attitudes com-ponent of SOI needs to consider the sex-differentiated nature ofsociosexuality (Kennair et al.2016). The findings support that individual differences in sociosexuality attitudes and sex differ-ences overlap, with women being less short-term oriented ingeneral and also report greater interest in long-term rather thanshort-term encounters. There was also an overlap in what factorsinfluence meeting someone for either a long-term committedromantic relationship or one-night stands. Most likely, this isdue to most people being interested to some degree in bothshort-term as well as long-term relationships (Gangestad and Simpson2000). This resonates with the motives reported by Botnen et al. (2018).T

here was a positive association between one-night stands and meetings with an interest in a long-term committed romantic relationship. Possible explanations of this finding arethat users of Tinder have multiple, non-mutually exclusivereasons for app use, and that some relationships develop from what were initially one-night stands. Unrestricted sociosexual attitudes increased number of one-night stands; however, the effect of SOI-attitudes was negative for committed relationships. These findings were robust. There was a tendency thatthe desire component of sociosexuality also increased one-night stands, but this effect was accounted for by number ofmeet ups and short-term mate value.

Short-term mate value (physical attractiveness) predictsnumber of one-night stands following Tinder. Nevertheless,the directionality is unresolved. Possibly, the effect is bidirec-tional: higher mate value may have increased the number ofone-night stands, and more hook-ups may have resulted inhigher self-perceived mate value


---
Check also Rosenfeld M. (2018) Are Tinder and Dating Apps Changing Dating and Mating in the USA? In: Van Hook J., McHale S., King V. (eds) Families and Technology. National Symposium on Family Issues, vol 9, pp 103-117. Springer, September 21 2018. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/10/are-tinder-dating-apps-changing-dating.html

And The Association Between Mating Performance, Marital Status, and the Length of Singlehood: Evidence From Greece and China. Menelaos Apostolou, Yan Wang. Evolutionary Psychology, November 13, 2019. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/11/a-considerable-proportion-of-people-in.html

And Do Women Really Desire Casual Sex? Analysis of a Popular Adult Online Dating/Liaison Site, by Michelle Escasa-Dorne and William Jankowiak. In Focality and Extension in Kinship. Essays in memory of Harold W Scheffler. Warren Shapiro (Ed.). Jun 2018. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/06/do-women-really-desire-casual-sex.html