Page 96 - Demo

94Chapter 5AbstractA consistent finding in the literature is that men overperceive sexual interestin women (i.e., sexual overperception bias). Several potential mechanismshave been proposed for this bias, including projecting one’s own interestonto a given partner, sexual desire, and self-rated attractiveness. Here,we examined the influence of these factors in attraction detection accuracyduring speed-dates. Sixty-seven participants (34 women) split in four groupswent on a total of 10 speed-dates with all opposite-sex members of theirgroup, resulting in 277 dates. The results showed that attraction detectionaccuracy was reliably predicted by projection of own interest in combinationwith participant sex. Specifically, men were more accurate than women indetecting attraction when they were not interested in their partner comparedto when they were interested. These results are discussed in the widercontext of arousal influencing detection of partner attraction.Based on:Samara, I., Roth, T. S., & Kret, M. E. (2021). The role of emotionprojection, sexual desire, and self-rated attractiveness in the sexualoverperception bias. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 2507-2516.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02017-5All data, code, and materials that are associated with this paper and usedto conduct the analyses are accessible on the Leiden University archivingplatform DataverseNL.IntroductionAlmost half a century of research findings shows that men overperceivesexual interest in women (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Henningsen, 2004; Koeppel,Montagne-Miller, O’Hair, & Cody, 1993; Levesque, Nave, & Lowe, 2006;La France et al., 2009; Treat, Viken, & Summers, 2015), a finding aptlytermed as the “sexual overperception bias” (Haselton & Buss, 2000; Haselton, 2003). It has been suggested that this bias might rely on i) projecting one’s own interest onto a given partner and ii) on the set of behaviorsemployed in partner selection (i.e., mating strategy) (Howell et al., 2012;Koenig, Kirkpatrick, & Ketelaar, 2007). Recently, sex differences have beenobserved in these two factors, which revived the debate about the sexualoverperception bias (A. J. Lee et al., 2020; Roth, Samara, & Kret, 2021b).Since this bias has been linked to the likelihood of sexual assault (Abbey,McAuslan, & Ross, 1998), examining the factors relating to this bias hasnot only theoretical implications, but is crucial in illustrating the underlying causes for miscommunication in interpersonal relationships.While on a date, with uncertainty running high, people can make twotypes of errors: they can see attraction when there is none or miss it when itis there. These errors are the focus of the Error Management Theory (EMT;Haselton & Buss, 2000), an influential model explaining the sexual overperception bias. The EMT framework parallels statistical classification, in thatinferring attraction when there is none (overperception) is a Type I errorand missing attraction when attraction is indeed there (underperception) isa Type II error. Overperceiving attraction resembles a situation familiarto many chess players, in which a player is required to make a move eventhough any possible move would place her at a disadvantage (”Zugzwang”;Henningsen & Henningsen, 2010, p. 619). Similarly, a man believing thatanother is interested in him may feel bound to act; however, a move wouldplace him at risk for social embarrassment. On the other hand, not noticingattraction when it is indeed present results in significant costs (i.e., a missedmating opportunity). Crucially, the costs associated with missing such achance are asymmetrical across sexes (Haselton & Buss, 2000; Haselton,2003). Men may suffer a greater cost if they miss a chance to reproduce(underperceive) than social embarrassment (overperceive). On the otherhand, women expressing interest in a person not interested in a committedrelationship may suffer costs due to missed paternal investment, according to the parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972). In conclusion, whendetecting attraction, humans can either over- or under-perceive attractionand each error is associated with specific costs, which shape the resultingbaseline rates for detecting attraction in others.People are generally not accurate in predicting attraction during dates(Veenstra & Hung, 2011). For example, a recent speed-dating study showedthat participants were 51% accurate in correctly inferring whether theirIliana Samara 17x24.indd 94 08-04-2024 16:36