Sex and sexual orientation differences in mating (#238)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic . Sex and sexual orientation differences in mating. (2016, January 29). Retrieved 07:06, December 16, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjM4

MLA Style

"Sex and sexual orientation differences in mating" John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic . 29 Jan 2016 11:37 16 Dec 2017, 07:06 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjM4>

MHRA Style

'Sex and sexual orientation differences in mating', John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic , , 29 January 2016 11:37 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjM4> [accessed 16 December 2017]

Chicago Style

"Sex and sexual orientation differences in mating", John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic , , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjM4 (accessed December 16, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Sex and sexual orientation differences in mating [Internet]. John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic ; 2016 Jan 29, 11:37 [cited 2017 Dec 16]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjM4

Reference to Original Report of Finding Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(6), 1081.
Title Sex and sexual orientation differences in mating
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result Heterosexual and homosexual men and women responded to scales dealing with interest in uncommitted sex, interest in visual sexual stimuli, concern with partner’s status, preferred partner age, importance of partner’s physical attractiveness, and sexual vs. emotional infidelity. All measures produced typical sex differences, and homosexual participants responded similarly to their heterosexual counterparts, with some exceptions.
Type of Replication Attempted Fairly Direct Replication
Result Type Successful Replication
Difference? Not Applicable
Number of Subjects 2801
Number of Subjects in Original Study 277
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2015
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic
Detailed Description of Method/Results An online questionnaire was distributed on Reddit (r/sex, r/LGBT, and r/samplesize). Participants answered a variety of questions dealing with sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual behavior/history, and sexual preferences including the scales administered by Bailey et al. There were 2801 participants included in the current analyses (1674 heterosexual men, 55 homosexual men, 1039 heterosexual women, and 33 homosexual women.) Analyses consisted of a 2 (Sex: men vs. women) x2(Sexual Orientation: Heterosexual vs. Homosexual) MANOVA on Baily et al.’s original scales, as well as independent samples t-tests between heterosexual and homosexual participants of each sex. Chi squares were calculated for the sexual vs. emotional infidelity item.

The original results found typical sex differences on all measures (regardless of sexual orientation), and the current study replicated these findings, F(5, 2793) = 38.45, p < .001, partial eta squared = .06. (Chi square (1) = 100.77, p < .001 on the sexual vs. emotional infidelity item.)

The current results replicated previous findings on interest in uncommitted sex: Heterosexual women (M = 33.51, SD = 12.87) and homosexual women (M = 32.18, SD = 13.64) have similar levels of interest in uncommitted sex t(1070) = 0.58, p = .56. The same is true for heterosexual men (M = 42.42, SD = 12.58) and homosexual men (M = 41.75, SD = 15.46), t(1727) = 0.39, p = .70.

The current results partially replicated previous findings on interest in visual sexual stimuli: The original results reported that heterosexual women had lower levels of interest in visual sexual stimuli than homosexual women, but the current results detected no difference between heterosexual women (M = 53.85, SD = 10.33) and homosexual women (M = 54.58, SD = 11.32), t(1070) = 0.40, p = .69. The current results replicated previous findings that heterosexual men (M = 65.94, SD = 8.38) and homosexual men (M = 64.82, SD = 7.32) did not differ significantly, t(1727) = 0.98, p = .33.

The current results did not replicate previous findings on concern with partner status. The previous results showed that heterosexual women were more concerned with partner status than homosexual women, but the current results showed that heterosexual women (M = 53.69, SD = 9.60) and homosexual women (M = 51.21, SD = 9.04) were comparable, t(1070) = 1.46, p = .14. The previous results also showed that there was no significant difference between heterosexual men and homosexual men, but the current results showed that heterosexual men (M = 48.06, SD = 8.84) were significantly less concerned than homosexual men (M = 51.69, SD = 10.46), t(1727) = 2.98, p = .003.

The current results partially replicated previous findings on preferred partner age. Using a scale, the original results showed that heterosexual women and homosexual women were similar in their preferences for younger partners, and that heterosexual men had greater interest in younger partners than homosexual men. Using the same scale, the current results replicated the finding that heterosexual women (M = 40.20, SD = 9.94) and homosexual women (M = 41.85, SD = 9.73) were comparable, t(1070) = 0.94, p = .35, but the current study found no significant difference between heterosexual men (M = 49.00, SD = 9.88) and homosexual men (M = 48.05, SD = 12.12), t(1727) = 0.69, p = .49. However, on a separate item in which participants simply entered their ideal partner’s age, heterosexual men indicated a significantly greater preference for younger partners (M = 2.79 years younger, SD = 5.26) than homosexual men (M = 0.15 years older, SD = 7.67), t(1727) = 3.99, p < .001. The same item did not reveal significant differences between heterosexual women (M = 2.37 years older, SD = 4.06) and homosexual women (M = 1.52 years older, SD = 2.58), t(1070) = 1.20, p = .23.

The current study replicated previous findings on importance of partner’s physical attractiveness: Heterosexual women (M = 39.58, SD = 8.13) scored comparably to homosexual women (M = 40.00, SD = 8.80), t(1070) = 0.29, p = .77, and heterosexual men (M = 45.46, SD = 7.92) scored comparably to homosexual men (M = 44.16, SD = 8.09), t(1727) = 1.19, p = .23.

The current study replicated previous findings on sexual vs. emotional jealousy: Heterosexual women did not differ from homosexual women in terms of their distress at hypothetical sexual infidelity, with 20.56% of heterosexual women and 21.21% of homosexual women responding that sexual infidelity would be more distressing than emotional infidelity, chi square (1) < 0.01, p = .93. Heterosexual men differed from homosexual men, with 39.55% of heterosexual men and only 16.67% of homosexual men responding that sexual infidelity would be more distressing, chi square (1) = 11.53, p < .001.

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
The current study had more unbalanced sample sizes than the original study. The current study used scales taken from Bailey et al., but in the original study the authors incorporated participants' specific ages in some items on the scale on Preference for Younger Partners. The current study modified those items to generically ask about older or younger partners. Finally, the current study included a variety of other scales and items related to mating psychology that are not reported in this posting.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Bogdan Kostic and John Scofield
Location of Projectonline questionnaire
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Adults tested through internet
An online questionnaire was distributed on Reddit (r/sex, r/LGBT, and r/samplesize).
Where did these subjects reside?Diverse countries (internet sample)
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published