People with personality pathologies are more interested in casual sex, study finds
The findings are among the few to detail the intersection of pathological personalities and sex preferences.
A new study shows that people with pathological personality traits tend to be more interested in casual sex than long-term relationships.
The findings, published in The Journal of Sex Research, are among the few on the intersection of pathological personalities and sex preferences.
“There is a considerable amount of research on how ‘normal’ personality traits relate to various aspects of sex and relationship preferences, but there is much less on how ostensible pathologies of personality relate to them,” study author Peter Karl Jonason of Western Sydney University told PsyPost.
Jonason and his colleagues approached the study with two goals: to further explore this little-studied area of psychology, and to do so through the lens of evolutionary psychology without making any moral assumptions or judgments.
In the study, the researchers surveyed 702 undergraduates about their personality traits, life history, and sociosexuality. The results showed that people who displayed more pathological personality traits—like detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism—were more interested in casual sex relative to other participants.
“Generally speaking, people with personality pathologies are interested in casual sex more than serious relationships,” Jonason told PsyPost.
“Men are more interested in casual sex than women are and women are more interested in long-term relationships than men are, but the sexes do not differ in the amount prior sexual experiences they have had.”
Jonason said these differences are partially driven by pathology.
“Importantly, these effects (and more) appear to be a function of what is called, someone’s life history speed, which is how they express tradeoffs between long-term, prosocial interests and short-term, selfish interests; a variable of prime importance in modern evolutionary psychology derived from the robust evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology literatures.”
The researchers interpreted the results through life history theory, a theory of biological evolution sometimes employed by evolutionary psychologists that analyzes and “predicts how natural selection should shape the way organisms parcel their resources into making babies,” as professor of biology David Reznick wrote in 2010. The theory argues that our early life experiences influence how we view relationships and sex as we grow older.
From an evolutionary perspective, it would make sense that people who live unpredictable or dangerous childhoods would be drawn to a fast life strategy, which is to say have children earlier in life or have sex with many different partners. The main reason is because they might not expect to live a long life.
In contrast, people who come from a stable upbringing might be less disposed to personality pathologies and more inclined to invest for the future and have children later in life—a slow life strategy.
Still, the results of the study are speculative.
“The most important caveats are related. Because the data is cross-sectional, we cannot know if the order we propose is best. For instance, it is possible, albeit unlikely based on theory, that certain sexual behaviors lead to these pathological personality traits,” Jonason told PsyPost.
“It would be far superior to do some sort of manipulation, but manipulating people into disorders would be unethical and if we could easily change people’s pathologies with some experimental treatment this would be a boon for clinical practice. As such, all we can say is that there are associations here and interpret them through the theoretical lense of life history theory to understand them.”
Lumina Foundation is partnering with Big Think to unearth the next large-scale, rapid innovation in post-high school education. Enter the competition here!
Good science is sometimes trumped by the craving for a "big splash."
- Scientists strive to earn credit from their peers, for grants from federal agencies, and so a lot of the decisions that they make are strategic in nature. They're encouraged to publish exciting new findings that demonstrate some new phenomenon that we have never seen before.
- This professional pressure can affect their decision-making — to get acclaim they may actually make science worse. That is, a scientist might commit fraud if he thinks he can get away with it or a scientist might rush a result out of the door even though it hasn't been completely verified in order to beat the competition.
- On top of the acclaim of their peers, scientists — with the increasing popularity of science journalism — are starting to be rewarded for doing things that the public is interested in. The good side of this is that the research is more likely to have a public impact, rather than be esoteric. The bad side? To make a "big splash" a scientist may push a study or article that doesn't exemplify good science.
Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.
Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.
Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.
Two space agencies plan missions to deflect an asteroid.
- NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) are working together on missions to a binary asteroid system.
- The DART and Hera missions will attempt to deflect and study the asteroid Didymoon.
- A planetary defense system is important in preventing large-scale catastrophes.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.