bims-chumac 2022-09-04 papers

Issue of 2022–09–04
four papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Aug 29.

Personality Predictors of Prejudicial Attitudes, Willingness to Engage, and Actual Engagement in Consensual Non-Monogamy.

Sharon M Flicker, Flavia Sancier-Barbosa.

Personality variables, including sensation-seeking, interpersonal trust, avoidance of uncertainty, endorsement of social conformity, and love styles (Ludus, Eros, Pragma, Storge, Mania, and Agape), were examined as predictors of prejudicial attitudes toward individuals who practice polyamory and personal interest in engaging in consensual non-monogamy (CNM) among 1831 participants who completed anonymous surveys online. Personality characteristics were also compared between individuals who currently practice CNM (n = 67) and case-matched controls involved in monogamous relationships. As predicted, prejudicial attitudes and willingness to engage in CNM were positively and moderately correlated and there was substantial overlap in the predictors of both variables. However, the strongest predictors differed: prejudicial attitudes were best predicted, in a positive direction, by endorsement of social conformity and, to a lesser extent, Pragma love style, while willingness to engage in CNM was best predicted by the Ludus (positive) and Eros (negative) love styles. Individuals who practice monogamy and CNM were more similar than different: only two of the 12 variables tested significantly differed. CNM individuals are more ludic and more tolerant of cognitive uncertainty. Difficulty interpreting some of the results laid bare the need for relationship measures that are valid for individuals who practice CNM. Improving our understanding of the relation between personality traits and CNM may help us develop better interventions for clients who seek to transition from monogamy to CNM but struggle to adapt to the new challenges as well as design better efforts to increase acceptance and reduce discrimination against those who practice CNM.

Keywords: Consensual non-monogamy; Love styles; Monogamy; Personality; Polyamory; Prejudice

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02393-6

Eat Weight Disord. 2022 Aug 30.

The influence of partner appearance in the assessment of a person with obesity: an experimental study.

Alejandro Magallares, Daniel Pérez-Garín, Patricia Recio, Fernando Molero.

PURPOSE: This study analyzes whether knowing that a male with obesity has a romantic relationship with a normal weight woman improves impressions about him.
METHODS: An online experiment was conducted with a sample of 3024 adult participants (1828 women and 1196 men) with a mean age of 36.11 (SD = 13.49). Each participant was shown two photographs: one of a male target with obesity and one of his female partner (who had either normal weight or obesity depending on the condition). The respondents' sex was added as a fixed factor into the analyses. Physical attractiveness was rated using an item with a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Competence, warmth, and morality were measured using a 17-item adjective list.
RESULTS: The target was assessed as more attractive when he had a partner with normal weight (F(1, 3009) = 4.85, p = .028, [Formula: see text] = .002), and was also given higher scores for competence (F(1, 3009) = 4.93, p = .026, [Formula: see text] = .002), warmth (F(1, 3009) = 4.32, p = .038, [Formula: see text] = .001), and morality (F(1, 3009) = 11.16, p = .001, [Formula: see text] = .004). There was a significant interaction between partner weight and the respondents' sex for physical attractiveness, as the difference between the scores in each condition was only significant for women.
CONCLUSION: It is possible that women perceived that the male target who had a normal weight partner had a higher status or some hidden quality besides his physical appearance, and thus rated him as more attractive.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, experimental study.

Keywords: Experiment; Obesity; Physical attractiveness; Romantic relationship; Stereotypes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-022-01471-x

Biol Psychol. 2022 Aug 25. pii: S0301-0511(22)00164-8. [Epub ahead of print] 108421

An Empirical Investigation of the Roles of Biological, Relational, Cognitive, and Emotional Factors in Explaining Sex Differences in Dyadic Sexual Desire.

Juliana E French, James K McNulty, Anastasia Makhanova, Jon K Maner, Lisa A Eckel, Larissa Nikonova, Andrea L Meltzer.

One challenge many marital couples face is that they experience discrepant levels of sexual desire for one another. Such discrepancies are particularly likely to arise in mixed-sex relationships because, at least in long-term relationships, men tend to have higher levels of sexual desire for their partner than do women. But what underlies this sex difference? We used a dyadic study of 100 mixed-sex community-based newlywed spouses to investigate the role of biological, relational, cognitive, and emotional factors in explaining sex differences in dyadic sexual desire for a long-term partner. Consistent with predictions, wives on average reported lower daily sexual desire for their spouse than did husbands. Moreover, individual differences in men's and women's levels of circulating testosterone explained this sex difference whereas relational (marital satisfaction, commitment), cognitive (sex-role identification, stress, self-esteem), and emotional (mood, depressive symptoms) factors did not. These findings advance our knowledge of factors that influence dyadic sexual desire and may have practical implications for treating relationship distress in mixed-sex marriages.

Keywords: Dyadic Sexual Desire; Marriage; Sex differences; Testosterone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108421

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Aug 25. pii: S0889-5406(22)00470-X. [Epub ahead of print]

Impact of facial components on the attractiveness of face: A perception-based study.

Priya Parul, Mukesh Kumar, Manish Goyal, Shalini Mishra, Kalpit Shaha, Md Abrar.

INTRODUCTION: Magazines and television displays are not merely crammed with faces-they are filled with appealing faces, and both men and women are interested in a suitable partner's appearance. This study investigated what makes a face attractive and whether perception-related differences exist between facial attractiveness and facial components.
METHODS: In this descriptive-analytical study, frontal and lateral view photographs of 18 young adults (9 male and 9 female) in Class I, II, and III malocclusions were assessed by 90 orthodontists, dentists, models, and laypeople using a 7-point Likert scale in terms of attractiveness. Based on scores, attractive and unattractive groups were formed. Using image analysis software, a range of defined length, angles, perimeter, and area for lips, nose, and chin were measured for the attractive group. For statistical analysis, each group was compared using a 1-way analysis of variance. Logistic regression was performed to analyze the factors of different parameters to the attractiveness of facial components.
RESULTS: Overall full-face width, upper lip angle, lip area, and mentolabial angle was significantly different in all the 3 classes (P ≤0.05). In Class I malocclusion, nasolabial angle among orthodontists, nasofrontal angle among dentists, lower lip among models, and full-face width among laypeople were responsible for facial attractiveness variation. In Class II malocclusion, nose to upper lip among orthodontists, Cupid's bow among dentists, wider face among models, and upper lip among layperson were responsible for variation in facial attractiveness. In Class III malocclusion, lower lip angle among orthodontists and dentists, Cupid's bows among models and layperson was responsible for variation in facial attractiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: In Class I faces, lips (Cupid's bows, lower lips, lip areas), nose (nasolabial, nasofrontal, and nasomental angles), and chin (lower lip to chin) contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face, while in Class II faces, lips (upper lip length, interbow distance, lower lip angle), nose (full facial convexity), and chin (mentolabial sulcus), as well as a greater full-face width contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face. In Class III faces, lips (lower lip angle, upper lip length), nose (nose tip angle, full facial convexity), and chin (mentolabial sulcus depth) contributed to the overall attractiveness of the face.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.07.012