” (b) “Would you come over to my apartment tonight? ” Men and women differed markedly in their receptivity to casual sexual offers (see Table 1).
Since its publication, this study has attracted a great deal of attention.
Among these Neo-Darwinian understandings are: intrasexual and intersexual selection, good genes sexual selection (Møller & Alatalo, 1999), Fisher’s (1915) conceptualism of runaway sexual selection (see Pomiankowski, Iwasa, & Nee, 1991), Zahavi and Zahavi’s (1997) handicap principle, the immunocompetence handicap principle, sexual antagonistic co-evolution, and the life history theory (Kokko, Brooks, Mc Namara, & Houston, 2002), among others.
Most agree that while people possess the same inherited and universal information processing mechanisms, preferences vary in predictable and adaptive ways across culture. Scholars might consider the personality traits and social situation of the respondents. Do they have many/few opportunities for dates or sex? How do people expect to be treated if word gets out of their acceptance/rejection?Some examples: In 2003, Psychological Inquiry designated the study “a classic, an experiment that scholars will still be talking about 100 years from now.” For evolutionary psychologists, it has become part of the “canon” (see, for example, Buss, 2003), documenting the importance of gender in love and casual sexual relationships.Several TV science programs in America, Austria, Canada, and Germany, among others, have discussed the study and have attempted to conduct partial or full replications/variations of the original experiment (Hatfield, 2006; Molzer, 2003; Voracek, Hofhansl, & Fisher, 2005).Similar results have been found by a variety of other authors (Fisher & Cox, 2009). They worry about public relations and the welfare of confederates and participants.Given the importance of such social and ecological factors, Hatfield (2006) suggested that evolutionary scholars begin to ask the “Who, where, what, when, and why? Finally, even if scholars wish to stage replications, university IRBs generally refuse to approve such controversial field studies. We decided that what is needed is a pencil and paper prototype that would prove a useful substitute for Clark and Hatfield’s (1989) procedure, without its drawbacks.