Page 106 - Demo

104Chapter 5when participants were not interested in their partner. Women were approximately 50% accurate in detecting attraction, independent of whether theywere interested in their partner or not. Sexual desire and self-rated attractiveness did not influence accuracy in detecting attraction. In the sectionbelow, we discuss these results in more detail.First, we found that men were more likely to indicate that they wereinterested in going out with their partner again compared to women. Thisis in line with previous literature across different countries and target samples (i.e., university students and general population) showing a consistentpattern in terms of reduced male selectivity (e.g., Asendorpf et al., 2011;Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson, 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005;Lenton & Francesconi, 2010; McClure, Lydon, Baccus, & Baldwin, 2010;Overbeek et al., 2013; Todd et al., 2007). An explanation could be thatmen wanted to maximize the number of dates that they could get, consistent with EMT (Haselton & Buss, 2000) which suggests that missing adating opportunity could be more costly for men than for women. Also,the low likelihood of women indicating that they would like to meet theirpartner again supports previous findings showing that women are typicallychoosier than men (Todd et al., 2007; Trivers, 1972). In conclusion, we showthat men were more likely than women to decide that they would like togo on another date with their partner supporting the notion that men areslightly less picky regarding dating.It might be argued that the increased tendency of men to respond positively after a date can be explained by the fact that only men had to rotatebetween partners in our study. This effect was described by Finkel and Eastwick (2009), who showed that the reduced selectivity is nullified when femaleparticipants also rotate between partners. However, a recent meta-analysisshowed that the female choosiness effect is robust across studies, and thatthe rotation effect did not moderate female choosiness (Fletcher, Kerr, Li, &Valentine, 2014), nor has been replicated (e.g., Overbeek et al., 2013). It istherefore unlikely that the partner-rotation effect can explain our findings.Nonetheless, future research should examine whether the sex-rotation-setupmodulates the relationship between sex and the sexual overperception bias.Interestingly, we found that men were more accurate when they were notinterested in their partner compared to when they were, whereas women wereapproximately at 50% independent of their interest in their partner. An explanation for this interaction between sex and the projection of own interestmight be because of a link between choice biases and physiological arousal.Previous research has shown that men can detect changes in genital arousalthat indicate sexual arousal within five minutes, and importantly, the correlation between genital arousal and subjective sexual arousal is reliable formen, but not for women (Kukkonen, Binik, Amsel, & Carrier, 2007; Dekker& Everaerd, 1988). Physiological arousal influences our affective state, whichcan in turn bias our decisions (Damasio, 1996; Storbeck & Clore, 2008). ForIliana Samara 17x24.indd 104 08-04-2024 16:36