Who's chasing whom ? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

---

Author's personal copy
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 1016–1019
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j e s p
FlashReports
Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status
on mate poaching
Jessica Parker *, Melissa Burkley
Oklahoma State University, Department of Psychology, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Are women more interested in men who are already in a relationship? Female and male participants who
Received 22 January 2009
were single or in a relationship viewed information about an opposite-sex other and indicated their inter-
Revised 30 March 2009
est in pursuing this target. Half of the participants were told that the target was single and half read that
Available online 3 May 2009
the target was currently in a relationship. The results showed that only single women were more inter-
ested in pursuing an attached target rather than a single target. We discuss how these results add to what
Keywords:
is already known about mate poaching.
Mate poaching
Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Cheating
Gender
Relationship status
A commonly heard complaint among women is that ‘‘all the
Gender differences in mate poaching
good men are taken,” but is it possible that this perception is really
based on the fact that taken men are perceived as good? This belief
Several studies have investigated whether men or women are
that women are attracted to men who are currently attached is
more likely to engage in mate poaching; however, the results have
commonly depicted in movies, television and the tabloids, but
been inconclusive. Some argue that men would be more likely to
few have investigated it empirically. The purpose of this experi-
mate poach because men cheat more in general (e.g., Clark & Hat-
ment was to investigate (1) if women are more likely than men
?eld, 1989; Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999). The work by Schmitt
to prefer an already taken individual and (2) if this gender differ-
and colleagues seems to support this assertion by showing that
ence depends on the relationship status of the participant.
male respondents are more likely to report engaging in mate
This tendency to pursue someone who is already in a romantic
poaching tactics (Schmitt, 2004; Schmitt & Buss, 2001).
relationship is often referred to as mate poaching (Schmitt, 2004;
Conversely, some argue that mate poaching is different from
Schmitt & Buss, 2001). Mate poaching appears to be a relatively
other forms of cheating and as such, women may be more likely
common practice that occurs across a wide range of cultures. For
to practice it. Research on animal mating (e.g., ?sh, birds) has
example, Schmitt (2004) found that across ten world regions,
shown that female animals are more likely to choose a male that
57% of men and 35% of women indicated they had engaged in an
has already been chosen by other females (e.g., Dugatkin, 1992;
attempt at mate poaching, suggesting that this behavior is a uni-
Galeg & White, 1998). The assumption is that chosen men signal
versal mating practice.
they have desirable qualities that non-chosen men do not have
Researchers have not only identi?ed the frequency of mate
and as a result, women perceive them as more viable mates. Re-
poaching but have also examined the characteristics that make
search on human preferences does show that women rate men
someone more or less likely to poach. For example, people who
as more desirable when they are surrounded by other women,
mate poach are more likely to be low in agreeableness and consci-
compared to being alone or surrounded by other men (Hill & Buss,
entiousness than those who do not (Schmitt & Buss, 2001). How-
2008). Conversely, men rate women as less desirable when they
ever, the mate poaching characteristic that has received the most
are surrounded by other men, compared to being alone or sur-
attention is gender.
rounded by other women. Although this work did not examine
mate poaching per se (i.e., the target was not described as being
in a relationship with any of the surrounding individuals), it does
suggest that women may be more likely to copy the mate prefer-
ences of their peers, a pattern that closely mirrors the animal re-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jessica.parker@okstate.edu (J. Parker).
search previously described.
0022-1031/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.022

---

Author's personal copy
J. Parker, M. Burkley / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 1016–1019
1017
In an attempt to more directly examine gender differences in
some have suggested (Dugatkin, 2000; Uller & Johansson, 2002),
mate poaching, Uller and Johansson (2002) had female participants
then this signal should be more appealing to single women who
interact with two men, one who wore a wedding ring. The women
are lacking such resources. Women who are in a relationship them-
then rated both men on a variety of dimensions, including physical
selves have already found a mate who is willing to commit and so
attractiveness and interest in dating and having sex with each man.
it is unlikely that they will be enticed by such prospects.
The results showed that women rated both men equally across all
the dimensions. A more recent study, however, did ?nd evidence
Method
that women are more attracted to attached men, but this effect
was in?uenced by the women’s ovulation cycle. Bressan and
Participants and design
Stranieri (2008) showed women several photos of men along with
descriptions that the men were either single or attached. Results
The sample consisted of 184 undergraduates (97 women) from
indicated that women who were currently in a relationship them-
Oklahoma State University, with 46% of the sample identi?ed as
selves were more attracted to attached men, but this was only the
single (35 women, 49 men) and 54% as attached (62 women, 38
case when their fertility level was low. Conversely, when the wo-
men). Participation was for partial course credit. The study in-
men’s fertility level was high, they were more attracted to single
volved a 2 (gender: women versus men) Â 2 (relationship status:
men. For single women, there was no difference in attractiveness
single versus attached) Â 2 (target: single versus attached) facto-
ratings across the various conditions. This work therefore suggests
rial design.
that women are more attracted to taken men, but only when they
are in a relationship themselves and are not fertile.
Materials and procedure
Thus, research on gender differences in mate poaching seems
inconclusive. Work by Schmitt and colleagues suggest that men
Participants were seated in an individual computer cubicle and
are more likely to mate poach. However, because this work relies
were told the study was examining similarity effects on attraction.
solely on self-report data, it is possible that women are just less
Next, participants completed a survey on their personal prefer-
likely to admit that they have mate poached. Research using exper-
ences, including qualities that would describe their ideal romantic
imental designs instead suggests that women are more likely to
partner (questions were similar to those used on match.com or
mate poach, but only when they are in a relationship themselves
eharmony.com). Participants were told the computer would use
and are not fertile.
this information to match them with a fellow student in the data-
In addition to the differences in research methods, these studies
base that responded similarly.
also differ on exactly what they are measuring. The work by Sch-
Next, the computer supposedly generated a match and partici-
mitt asked people to report on their own poaching proclivities;
pants were shown a photograph and descriptive information
whereas, the experimental research focused exclusively on attrac-
regarding an opposite-sex target. All men viewed the same photo
tiveness ratings. Attraction, however, is just one aspect of mating
of a woman and all women viewed the same photo of a man. These
decisions. As such, it is likely that studies focusing solely on attrac-
photos were selected during pre-testing because they were both
tion ratings do not capture all the aspects of mate poaching and
rated as being moderately attractive. Above the photograph, partic-
this may also explain the inconsistency in ?ndings. For instance,
ipants read that the target shared similar interests with the partic-
Dugatkin (2000) suggests that women’s preference for attached
ipant (based on previous survey responses). Therefore, all
mates will be much more pronounced when asked to indicate their
participants likely identi?ed the target as physically attractive
interest in marrying the target rather than just rating the attrac-
and perceived the target as similar in interests. In addition to this
tiveness of the target.
information, participants were randomly assigned to read that the
target was either single or in a current romantic relationship.
Next, participants indicated how interested they were in pursu-
Present study
ing the target. These questions were created using modi?ed items
from other in?delity and mate poaching studies (Clark et al., 1999;
The purpose of the present study is to provide a more complete
Johnson & Rusbult, 1989). Speci?cally, participants responded to
picture of the gender differences in mate poaching. Our ?rst goal
the following questions: How appealing is this person; How likely
was to utilize dependent measures that capture a wider range of
would you show interest (make eye contact, smile, etc.) in this per-
mate poaching experiences, rather than focusing exclusively on
son; How compatible do you think you are with this person; How
attraction ratings as other studies have done. This study therefore
likely would you initiate a conversation with this person; How
included a variety of questions that assessed participants’ interests
likely would you initiate a relationship with this person; How di-
in pursuing a relationship with the target. Our second goal was to
rect would you be in initiating a romantic relationship with this
incorporate a factor that we believed would interact with gender to
person. Responses were made on a À3 (e.g., very unlikely) to +3
in?uence mate poaching: The relationship status of the participant.
(e.g., very likely) scale. The items demonstrated good internal reli-
As Schmitt and Buss (2001) pointed out, ‘‘poaching attraction may
ability (a = .81) and were combined into a single composite score,
vary depending on whether the mate poacher is single or already
with higher scores indicating a greater interest in pursuing the tar-
in a relationship (p. 913).” Yet, to date, only one study has exam-
get. Participants also rated how physically attractive the target was
ined relationship status in mate poaching (Bressan & Stranieri,
on a À3 (very unattractive) to +3 (very attractive) scale.1
2008), but since this study focused exclusively on women, it is un-
known if relationship status effects men and women equally.
The present study is the ?rst to examine both men and women’s
evaluations of single and attached targets, and it is also the ?rst to
do so with both single and attached participants. It was predicted
that women would be more interested in an attached target com-
pared to a single target but that men would not show this prefer-
1 Although the ratings of attraction and interest were positively correlated (r= .57,
ence. However, this female preference for an attached target was
p < .01), we expected them to result in different patterns (e.g., Dugatkin, 2000) and
only expected to occur for single women. If attached men signal
therefore treated them as separate theoretical constructs this separation is also
consistent with other attraction research (e.g., study ?ve of Elliot & Niesta, 2008; Uller
desirable resources and a willingness to commit to family life as
& Johansson, 2002).

---

Author's personal copy
1018
J. Parker, M. Burkley / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 1016–1019
Results
Attractiveness ratings
Interest in pursuing the target
Participants’ attractiveness ratings of the target were analyzed
using a 2 (gender: women versus men) Â 2 (relationship status:
Participants’ interest in pursuing the target was analyzed using
single versus attached) Â 2 (target: single versus attached) ANOVA.
a 2 (gender: women versus men) Â 2 (relationship status: single
The only effect that was signi?cant was a main effect of gender,
versus attached) Â 2 (target: single versus attached) analysis of
F(1, 176) = 6.39, p = .01, such that men rated the female target
variance (ANOVA). The only signi?cant main effect was gender,
(M = 1.29, SD = 0.78) as more physically attractive than the women
F(1, 176) = 21.08, p < .001, g2 = .11, such that men (M = .98,
rated the male target (M = .92, SD = 1.10). None of the other main
SD = .71) were more interested than women (M = .47, SD = .85)
effects or interactions was signi?cant.
in pursuing the target. As predicted, this main effect was
quali?ed by a signi?cant three-way interaction, F(1, 176) = 7.77,
Discussion
p = .01, g2 = .04.
To reveal the pattern of data underlying the three-way interac-
Our results showed an interesting mate poaching pattern.
tion, simple main effects were analyzed separately for single and
Although men were more interested in the target than women, this
attached participants. For single participants (see top of Fig. 1),
was because men were more interested in the target in general,
there was a signi?cant effect of gender, F(1, 80) = 8.21, p = .01,
regardless of whether she was attached or single. However, as pre-
g2 = .09, such that single men (M = .91, SD = .71) were more inter-
dicted, single women were more interested in poaching an at-
ested than single women (M = .47, SD = .82) in pursuing the target.
tached man rather than pursuing a single man. Interestingly, this
Importantly, this effect was quali?ed by a signi?cant gender  tar-
indicates that single women are more interested in pursuing a
get interaction, F(1, 80) = 6.23, p = .02, g2 = .07. As predicted, single
man that is less available to them. As predicted, this gender differ-
women were more interested in pursuing an attached target
ence in interest was not evident when the participants were in a
(M = .75, SD = .73) than a single target (M = .17, SD = .83), F(1,
committed relationship themselves.
80) = 5.46, p = .02. However, single men showed no difference in
The attractiveness ratings did not show this same pattern, sug-
interest between the attached (M = .81, SD = .73) and single target
gesting that attraction ratings do not capture the same dynamic as
(M = 1.05, SD = .69), F(1, 80) = 1.23, p = .27. As expected, single wo-
our interest in pursuit questions. This suggests that research inves-
men were more interested in poaching an attached target rather
tigating mate poaching should avoid only relying on attraction
than pursuing a single target, whereas single men were not.
questions and should include items that tap into the broader range
For participants in a relationship (see bottom of Fig. 1), there
of mate poaching experiences.
was also an effect of gender, F(1, 96) = 13.47, p < .001, g2 = .12, such
One limitation of the present study was that it used a single male
that attached men (M = 1.15, SD = .71) were more interested than
and female target photo and although our pretest indicated both
attached women (M = .46, SD = .86) in pursuing the target. As pre-
photos were perceived as moderately attractive, our study showed
dicted, this factor did not interact with condition, F(1, 96) = 2.19,
men’s attractiveness ratings for the female photo were higher than
p = .14. Unlike single women, attached women were not more
women’s ratings for the male photo. To address this issue, future
interested in pursuing the attached target compared to the single
studies on this topic should incorporate multiple female and male
target.
photos to increase the generalizability of the results. Another limita-
tion was that participants did not actually interact with the romantic
target; they simply indicated their interest in future interactions. Fu-
ture studies on mate poaching could try to capture the mate poach-
ing process as it unfolds during a dyadic interaction.
Single Individuals
According to a recent poll, most women who engage in mate
3
Single Target
poaching do not think the attached status of the target played a role
Attached Target
in their poaching decision (Knadler, 2008), but our study shows this
get
belief to be false. Single women in this study were signi?cantly more
ar 2
T
interested in the target when he was attached. This may be because
an attached man has demonstrated his ability to commit and in
est in
some ways his qualities have already been ‘‘pre-screened” by an-
1
other woman. These ?ndings elucidate the way that gender and
Inter
relationship status interact to in?uence mate poaching tendencies.
0
Men
Women
Acknowledgements
Participant's Gender
This research was based on the master’s thesis of Jessica Parker,
Attached Individuals
who thanks the members of her committee, Edward Burkley and
James Grice, for their guidance.
3
Single Target
get
Attached Target
References
ar 2
T
Bressan, P., & Stranieri, D. (2008). The best men are (not always) already taken:
Female preference for single versus attached males depends on conception risk.
est in 1
Psychological Science, 19, 145–151.
Clark, R. D., & Hat?eld, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.
Inter
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.
0
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic
Men
Women
relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 709–722.
Participant's Gender
Dugatkin, L. A. (1992). Sexual selection & imitation: Females copy the mate choice
of others. The American Naturalist, 139, 1384–1389.
Fig. 1. Single participants’ (top) and attached participants’ (bottom) interest in
Dugatkin, L. A. (2000). The imitation factor: Evolution beyond the gene. New York:
pursuing the target.
Free Press.

---

Author's personal copy
J. Parker, M. Burkley / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 1016–1019
1019
Elliot, A. J., & Niesta, D. (2008). Romantic red: Red enhances men’s attraction to
Knadler, J. (2008). Invasion of the husband snatchers. Women’s Health, 131–135.
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1150–1164.
November.
Galeg, B. G., & White, D. J. (1998). Mate-choice copying in Japanese quail. Animal
Schmitt, D. P. (2004). Patterns of universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The
Behavior, 55, 545–552.
effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another
Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The mere presence of opposite-sex others on
person’s partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 560–584.
judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: Opposite effects for men and
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations
women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 635–647.
for in?ltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of
80, 894–917.
alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close
Uller, T., & Johansson, L. C. (2002). Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect.
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 967–980.
Human Nature, 14, 267–276.

---