https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9905-9093
Abstract
At the core of sexual assault is a misunderstanding of sexual consent, and incorrect sexual interest perception is a misunderstanding of other people’s sexual consent. Therefore, it is important to examine the mechanism of sexual interest perception to prevent instances of sexual assault. In order to explore the relationship and mechanism between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception, this study explored the relationship between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception from the perspectives of positive mating efficacy (mating confidence and self-esteem) and negative mating efficacy (perceived rejection experiences from the opposite sex, rejection sensitivity, and social anxiety). Four hundred and three heterosexual male subjects participated in this study (age in years: M = 26.4, SD = 6.1). The results showed that mating confidence and negative mating efficacy, but not self-esteem, mediated the relationship between self-perceived attractiveness and the sexual interest perception. The findings indicated that those with high self-perceived attractiveness overestimated sexual interest and those with low self-perceived attractiveness underestimated sexual interest.
LAY SUMMARY
In general, men tend to overestimate the sexual interest from opposite-sex under the ambiguous condition. Especially, self-attractive men tend to overestimate women’s sexual interest based on their high mating success. However, self-unattractive men tend to underestimate women’s sexual interest based on their being rejected experiences or fear of being rejected in mating condition.
Introduction
Sexual intention inference refers to an individual’s assessment of the subjective interest of others in pursuing sexual activities, which includes a series of behaviors between touching, kissing, and intercourse (Lindgren et al., Citation2008). Since the inferences about sexual intentions are not directly observed but based on probabilistic cues, errors are likely to occur, which leads to sexual interest perception errors. Sexual interest perception is related to sexual assault. At the heart of sexual assault is a misunderstanding of sexual consent. Men primarily use verbal behavior to identify sexual non-consent (Jozkowski et al., Citation2014) and are likely to assume a woman has consented to sex in the absence of verbal or physical sexual refusal behavior (Burkett & Hamilton, Citation2012). A widely endorsed theory is that explicit verbal sexual consent communication is not normative behavior (Curtis & Burnett, Citation2017). Accordingly, young people report using explicit verbal consent cues less frequently than implicit or nonverbal cues (Beres et al., Citation2004; Hickman & Muehlenhard, Citation1999; Muehlenhard et al., Citation2016). As a consequence, it is easy to make sexual interest perception errors and sexual activity may occur without the other person’s consent. Therefore, it is important to study the mechanism of sexual interest perception to prevent sexual assault.
According to the Error Management Theory, there are two kinds of sexual interest perception errors (Haselton & Buss, Citation2000). The first is the false positive error, which refers to perceiving no interest as sexual interest and the other is the false negative error, which refers to perceiving sexual interest as no interest (Kohl & Robertson, Citation2014). Gender plays an important role in the difference of sexual interest perception errors, and men are more likely than women to perceive high sexual interest from the opposite sex (Lindgren et al., Citation2008), which can also be explained by self-presentation factors. For example, women may be less willing to report their sexual intentions or evaluate others’ sexual intentions (Abbey, Citation1982), or men may exaggerate their sexual intentions. Women’s self-reports were lower than their true intentions, while men’s self-reports were more accurate. (Engeler & Raghubir, Citation2018; Murray et al., Citation2017; Perilloux & Kurzban, Citation2015).
Abundant research has shown that men consistently perceived higher sexual interest expressed by women (Lindgren et al., Citation2008). Perilloux et al. (Citation2012) demonstrated that this phenomenon occurred only in men who considered themselves attractive, and that men who were merely perceived as attractive by others tended to perceive lower sexual interest. This may be because men who are merely perceived as attractive by others, but are less confident in their own attractiveness, do not perceive themselves as attractive to potential partners and therefore have a lower perception of other people’s sexual interest. Subsequent studies have shown that measures of attractiveness (self-perception and others’ ratings) are positively correlated with sexual interest perception (Kohl & Robertson, Citation2014). In sum, self-perceived attractiveness is an important component of mate value and plays a positive predictive role in the process of sexual interest perception (Kohl & Robertson, Citation2014). Examining the mechanisms between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception would be helpful in sexual assault intervention and prevention.
Few theories can explain the relationship between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest. Kavanagh et al. (Citation2010) verified the Sociometer Theory (Kirkpatrick & Ellis, Citation2001) and provide supporting evidence for the view that men who consider themselves attractive tend to overestimate sexual interest from the opposite sex because men’s perception of social interactions with women is basically dependent on past experience. The Mating Theory is a specific application of the Sociometer Theory in the field of mate selection (Leary & Baumeister, Citation2000). The Sociometer Theory posits that the self-esteem system is essentially a social measure that monitors the quality of a person’s relationships, motivates behavior, and helps the person maintain the lowest level of acceptance by others. The system is highly sensitive. Acceptance and identity can improve self-evaluation and self-esteem, while exclusion and rejection can lower self-evaluation and lower self-esteem.
Individuals who rated themselves as highly attractive tended to have more acceptance experiences from the opposite sex. According to the Mating Theory, individuals with less perceived rejection experiences have higher sexual self-esteem and expectations (Kavanagh et al., Citation2010). This is because they are more confident that they can successfully obtain sexual contact with the opposite sex and tend to overestimate the sexual interest of the opposite sex. However, with regard to sexual interest perception, individuals with low self-perceived attractiveness tend to underestimate others’ sexual interest to avoid the negative influence brought by the rejection from the opposite sex. Thus, the relationship between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception is the result of overestimation by individuals who rate themselves as highly attractive, underestimation by individuals who rate themselves as less attractive, or a combination of the two, which has not been explored by researchers. In order to explore this question, this study examined the mechanisms of the association between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception in men via two paths of positive and negative mating efficacy.
Positive mating efficacy: self-esteem and mating confidence
Self-esteem reflects a person’s perception of others’ feelings (Rosenberg, Citation1979). Specifically, self-esteem can monitor a person’s social inclusion or acceptance and social rejection or exclusion. Individuals with high self-perceived attractiveness feel more social acceptance and have higher levels of self-esteem. At the same time, individuals with high self-esteem have higher expectations of spouse selection. In addition, they think they are more likely to be liked by others. In the process of sexual interest perception, people with high self-esteem may overestimate others’ sexual interest in them. Mating confidence refers to the belief of individuals that they can easily have sexual contact with others (Landolt et al., Citation1995). Generally, individuals with high self-perceived attractiveness have higher mating confidence, more successful experiences, and more motivation to make a subsequent attempt (Nepomuceno et al., Citation2016). In the process of sexual interest perception, people with high mating confidence may think that they are very popular and are more likely to have sexual contact with others, so they tend to interpret the friendly signals of others as sexual interest. Therefore, mating confidence may play a mediating role in self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception. Self-esteem and mating confidence both play a positive role in the process of sexual interest perception. Of the two, mating confidence may have a great impact on such perception, as it is the specific expression of self-esteem in the field of mate selection.
Negative mating efficacy: perceived rejection experiences from the opposite sex, rejection sensitivity and social anxiety
Rejection from the opposite sex, which can manifest as either outright rejection or less confrontational avoidance, is a form of social rejection (Zhang et al., Citation2016). Generally, individuals with low self-perceived attractiveness experience more rejection from the opposite sex (Haselton & Buss, Citation2000). Individuals who have more perceived rejection experiences have higher levels of rejection sensitivity and social anxiety (Baumeister & Tice, Citation1990). Rejection sensitivity refers to an individual’s anxious expectation of others’ rejection of information in interpersonal relationships, as well as his attention bias and overreaction bias towards people and rejection cues (Downey & Feldman, Citation1996). Individuals with high rejection sensitivity tend to regard other people’s vague or neutral behavior as rejection, and, as a result, they may respond with excessive reactions such as anxiety and anger. Social anxiety is often conceptualized as an individual difference or trait marked by the fear of being negatively judged and rejected by others (American Psychiatric Association, Citation2013; Kennedy et al., Citation2001; Spielberger et al., Citation1971). Individuals with high social anxiety have attention bias not only with regard to negative evaluation information but also to positive information (Gilboa-Schechtman et al., Citation1999). This bias may be caused by inadequate information processing as individuals with high social anxiety tend to misinterpret positive information as negative information (Gilboa-Schechtman et al., Citation1999). Weeks et al. (Citation2008) argued that individuals with high levels of social anxiety regard positive information as a threat because they are afraid of expecting too much. Therefore, when perceiving sexual interest, individuals with high rejection sensitivity and social anxiety tend to interpret other people’s sexual interest signals or neutral signals as rejection because of attention bias, which results in the underestimation of sexual interest.
To better understand these behaviors, we examined the mechanisms of the association between men’s self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception via positive mating efficacy and negative mating efficacy paths. Positive mating efficacy is characterized by self-esteem and mating confidence, while negative mating efficacy is characterized by perceived rejection experiences, rejection sensitivity, and social anxiety. We hypothesized that both negative and positive mating efficacy would play mediating effects in the relationship between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception.
Method
Participants and procedure
This study collected research data through the professional questionnaire survey platform Wenjuanxing in China. Participants were recruited by distributing questionnaires on popular social network software such as QQ, WeChat, and SinaWeibo. In addition, other eligible participants were recruited through these participants. This snowball sampling technology was helpful as it generated diversity with respect to participant age and background. A total of 403 heterosexual male subjects were recruited (age in years: M = 27.53, SD = 6.467). Among these subjects, 153 (37.9%) were single (divorced or separated, etc.) and 250 (62.0%) were non-single (in love or marriage, etc.). In terms of occupation, 124 (30.8%) were students and 279 (69.2%) were not students. In terms of education level, 42 (10.4%) did not have any post-secondary degrees, while 361 (89.6%) did.
Measures
Background questionnaire
Background questionnaires were used to assess participants’ age, relationship status, education level, and occupation.
Self-perceived attractiveness
Self-perceived attractiveness was measured using two different assessments. First, subjects were asked to rate their self-perception of three items—facial attractiveness, body attractiveness, and overall attractiveness—on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = much lower than average, 7 = much higher than average). The self-reported attractiveness score was the average of all three. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.909. The second measure used to assess self-perceived attractiveness was the personal attributes survey (PAS-R, International Personality Item Pool, Citation2012) and has demonstrated good reliability and validity in a Chinese sample (e.g., Cao, Citation2018). This assessment asked participants to evaluate—using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate, 5 = very accurate)—the applicability of 9 different statements, like “I have a pleasing physique,” to themselves. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.846.
Sexual interest perception
The perception of women’s sexual interest was measured by the Situation Imagination Scale (Kohl & Robertson, Citation2014), which has demonstrated good reliability and validity in a Chinese sample (e.g., Cao, Citation2018). The participants were asked to imagine "in a nightclub, suddenly you noticed that a woman attracted your attention, and you were attracted by some of her characteristics, suddenly she turns around and finds your eyes. Instead of avoiding, she smiles at you." Using the 9-point Likert scale (1 = no sexual interest at all, 9 = full sexual interest), the subjects are asked to evaluate how much sexual interest a woman presents to you according to the imagined scene. They were also asked to evaluate the accuracy of four items from 1 (not at all correct) to 9 (completely correct): (1) her behavior was provocative; (2) she was attracted by my sexual attraction; (3) her behavior was seductive; (4) she wanted to have sex with me. As did Hart (2016), this study combined these four items to measure sexual interest. The average score of these five items was the score of sexual interest perception. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.905.
Positive mating efficacy
Self-esteem was measured by the Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, Citation1965), which has demonstrated good reliability and validity in various Chinese samples (e.g., Zhang et al., Citation2018). The scale contains 10 items. The subjects are asked to use the 4-point Likert scale (1 = very inconsistent, 4 = very consistent) to evaluate the degree to which each sentence corresponds to their actual situation. Among them, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 are reverse scoring items. The higher the score, the higher the level of self-esteem. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was 0.847.
Mating confidence was measured by the Self-Perceived Success Scale (Landolt et al., Citation1995), which consists of six items. The subjects were asked to score these items using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = total disagreement, 7 = very agreement). The higher the total score, the higher the confidence in spouse selection. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that all items loaded on one factor and could account for 64.5% of the variance (KMO = .865, Bartlett’s test =1492.5, p < .001). The internal consistency reliability (α) for the Self-perceived Success Scale was .878.
Negative mating efficacy
Perceived rejection experiences from the opposite sex were measured using the Perceived rejection experiences Questionnaire, which has demonstrated good reliability and validity in a Chinese sample (e.g., Wan, Citation2018). This questionnaire included 10 items with items 4 and 10 being reverse scoring items. Using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = almost always), subjects were asked to score the 10 items—the higher the score, the more perceived rejection experiences from the opposite sex. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was 0.723.
Rejection sensitivity was measured by the College Students’ Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire as revised by Zhao et al. (Citation2012), which has demonstrated good reliability and validity in a Chinese sample (e.g., Huang & Zhang, Citation2017). The scale consisted of 18 situations, most of which involved college students needing help from others in their daily lives. Participants scored each situation from two latitudes: one required participants to evaluate—from 1 (not worried at all) to 6 (very worried)—the degree of anxiety about rejection; the other required participants to evaluate—from 1 (impossible) to 6 (very likely)—the degree of expectation of acceptance. The score of rejection sensitivity is equal to the rejection score multiplied by the expectation score of anxiety; the higher the score, the higher the degree of rejection sensitivity. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was 0.941.
Social anxiety was measured by the Interaction Anxiety Scale (Leary, Citation1983), which has demonstrated good reliability and validity in a Chinese sample (e.g., Huang & Zhang, Citation2017). This scaled consisted of 15 items, and items 3, 6, 10, and 15 were reverse scoring items. Using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely inconsistent, 5 = extremely consistent), the subjects were asked to score these items. The higher the score, the higher the anxiety level of the subjects. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was 0.859.
Results
In this study, we examined the relationship between demographic variables and sexual interest perception including age, education level, occupation, and relationship status. Data analysis results showed that age, relationship status, and occupation had significant effects on sexual interest perception. First, age is positively correlated with sexual interest perception (r = .201, p < .01). ANOVA on overall sexual interest perception scores yielded significant main effects for occupation, F (1, 398) = 8.889, p < .01, partial η2 = .022. Non-student participants were more likely to overestimate the sexual interests of others (M = 5.107, SD = 1.755) than student participants (M = 4.721, SD = 1.685). The main effect of relationship status was also significant, F (1, 398) = 4.184, p < .05, partial η2 = .010. Non-single participants were more likely to overestimate the sexual interests of others (M = 5.188, SD = 1.784) than single participants (M = 4.656, SD = 1.618).
The binary correlation between all the study variables is shown in . As shown, the self-reported attractiveness scores, physical attractiveness scores, and sexual interest perception scores were significantly positively correlated. In addition, self-esteem and mating confidence were significantly positively correlated with self-reported attractiveness, physical attractiveness, and sexual interest perception scores. Finally, social anxiety, perceived rejection experiences, and rejection sensitivity were significantly negatively correlated with self-reported attractiveness and physical attractiveness, while social anxiety and perceived rejection experiences were significantly negatively correlated with sexual interest perception scores.
Table 1. Bivariate correlations among study variables.
In order to test the mediating effect of positive mating efficacy (self-esteem and mating confidence) and negative mating efficacy (perceived rejection experiences, social anxiety, and rejection sensitivity), we employed structural equation modeling using Mplus version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, Citation2012). We used the latent variable function in structural equation modeling to test the associations between self-perceived attractiveness, positive mating efficacy, negative mating efficacy, and sexual interest perception. The latent variables were formed for positive mating efficacy, comprising self-esteem and mating confidence, and for negative mating efficacy, comprising perceived rejection experiences, social anxiety, and rejection sensitivity. Age, relationship status, and occupation were the control variables in the mediation analyses, which involved testing structural models to examine their fit to the sample data. Model fit in this study was assessed using the chi-squared statistic (χ2), normed chi-square (χ2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Indicators of acceptable model fit were CFI and TLI > .95 and RMSEA < .08 (Browne & Cudeck, Citation1992; Little, Citation2013; MacCallum et al., Citation1996).
The measurement model demonstrated adequate fit to the data: χ2 (15) = 64.004, p < .001, (χ2/df) = 4.2669, CFI = .955, TLI = .915, SRMR = .042, and RMSEA = .09 (90% confidence interval [CI] = [.068, .114]). However, upon inspection for potential areas of misfit, the estimated correlation between the self-esteem and mating confidence latent variables was greater than 1. This suggests that these two latent variables were statistically indistinguishable from one another and could not be included simultaneously in the model (Muthén & Muthén, Citation2012). To solve this problem, self-esteem and mating confidence were considered as independent mediating variables in the model.
The fit indexes revealed that the model was an acceptable fit to the data: χ2 (25) = 75.841, p < .001, (χ2/df) = 3.034, CFI = .956, TLI = .909, SRMR = .043, and RMSEA= .071 (90% CI = [.053, .090]). displays the mediation path model, in which self-esteem, mating confidence, negative mating efficacy, and sexual interest perception were significantly correlated. Self-perceived attractiveness was significantly correlated with sexual interest perception. Sexual interest perception was significantly correlated with mating confidence and negative mating efficacy, but not with self-esteem. Furthermore, the indirect effect of self-perceived attractiveness on sexual interest perception via mating confidence was significant (β= .243, SE = .067, p < .001), as was the indirect effect of self-perceived attractiveness on sexual interest perception via the negative path (β= − .307, SE = .136, p < .05). But the indirect effect of self-perceived attractiveness on sexual interest perception via self-esteem was not significant (β= .079, SE= .060, p = .189).
Figure 1. The mediating effects of self-esteem, mating confidence and negative mating efficacy on the relationship between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception.
Discussion
We examined the mechanism that underlies the relationship between heterosexual men’s self-perceived attractiveness and sexual misunderstanding. According to the mating theory, self-esteem plays an effective monitoring role in this process. Individuals with low self-perceived attractiveness will experience more rejection from the opposite sex, lower self-esteem, higher social anxiety, and rejection sensitivity, which causes them to underestimate the sexual interest of others. Individuals with high self-perceived attractiveness have higher self-esteem, higher confidence in mate selection, and, therefore, tend to overestimate other people’s sexual interest. From these two paths, it can be explored that the generation of sexual misunderstanding is the result of overestimation of individuals with high self-perceived attractiveness and underestimation of individuals with low self-perceived attractiveness. The results show that the positive and negative mating efficacy can indeed explain the mechanism of sexual misunderstanding, and sexual misunderstanding is the result of positive mating efficacy (mating confidence) and negative mating efficacy (perceived rejection experiences, rejection sensitivity, and social anxiety).
As we predicted, the mediating effect of mating confidence was significant. Mating confidence is the concrete embodiment of self-esteem in the mate choice field. This result verifies the mating theory. Mating confidence depends more on past successful experiences as those who self-assess as having had many successful experiences also have higher mating confidence, which makes heterosexual sexual contact seem easier or more accessible to them. This ease or accessibility grants them the courage to try again, perhaps even causing them to employ more proactive strategies (Landolt et al., Citation1995), as their sexual expectations will be higher due to their tendency to overestimate the sexual interest of others. On the other hand, individuals who rated themselves as less attractive had lower confidence in a mate and tended to underestimate the sexual interest of others.
This result is not consistent with our conjecture. Previous studies have demonstrated that self-esteem plays a mediating role in rejection from the opposite sex and mate selection (Penke & Asendorpf, Citation2008; Zhang et al., Citation2016) and can adjust the negative impact of rejection from the opposite sex (in part to maintain positive mental health and well-being). In the current study, self-esteem, self-perceived attractiveness, and sexual interest perception scores were significantly correlated. However, self-esteem was not a significant mediator in the overall model. Therefore, it seems that mating confidence played a greater role than self-esteem in the relationship between attractiveness and sexual interest perception. Self-esteem is divided into overall self-esteem and domain-specific self-esteem. Overall self-esteem is the judgment of the overall value of an individual, while domain-specific self-esteem is the judgment of the personal value of a specific domain (mate selection, social interaction, intelligence, body, etc.) (Leary & Baumeister, Citation2000). According to the mating theory, self-esteem is domain-specific, and the self-esteem in mate choice field is greatly influenced by the previous experience of success or rejection with the opposite sex, while what we measured is the overall self-esteem level of the subjects.
The mediating effect of negative mating efficacy, which consists of perceived rejection experiences, rejection sensitivity, and social anxiety, was significant. Consistent with previous research, self-perceived attractiveness was negatively correlated with perceived rejection experiences, rejection sensitivity, and social anxiety. Individuals who rated themselves as less attractive had more perceived rejection experiences, and those perceived rejection experiences appeared to affect their subsequent mating behaviors and strategies. Moreover, individuals with more perceived rejection experiences from the opposite sex demonstrated higher social anxiety and rejection sensitivity, which can predict relationship process and outcome (Gilboa-Schechtman et al., Citation1999; Williams, Citation2007; Murray et al., Citation1998). The interplay between these experiences and reactions are as follows. Individuals with high levels of social anxiety tend to misinterpret positive information into negative information, while individuals with high rejection sensitivity tend to regard ambiguous or neutral behaviors of their romantic partners as rejection (Downey & Feldman, Citation1996, Citation2004). Thus, in the process of sexual interest inference, individuals with low self-perceived attractiveness will adopt certain avoidance strategies to avoid being hurt and tend to underestimate the sexual interest of others.
On the whole, the relationship between self-perceived attractiveness and sexual interest perception is the result of overestimation by individuals with high self-perceived attractiveness and underestimation by individuals with low self-perceived attractiveness. The negative path had stronger impact on the model than the positive path. Such an impact may be due to the fact that their perception of sexual interest is affected by multiple factors such as rejection sensitivity and social anxiety, and their degree of underestimation is higher than that of self-perceived attractiveness individuals in their interactions with the opposite sex.
This study does have its limitations. First of all, the age range of our subjects, most of whom were 20 to 30 years old, limits the universality of the study. In the future, we can consider expanding the scope and age of the subjects. Second, future studies should take into consideration the fact that low attractiveness may not always result in high rejection experience. If—in an effort to avoid rejection—an unattractive person does not express their sexual interest, they would not have the rejection experience. This absence of rejection may skew the data. Thirdly, we used a hypothetical scene scale for our sexual interest perception, but there may be some gaps between the hypothetical scene and the real scene. For example, if those with higher self-rated attractiveness are also more attractive, then they may not be rating sexual interest particularly high as they probabilistically assume the person in the vignette is more likely to be attracted to them than those of lower attractiveness. Future studies should consider using more accurate measurement tools. Finally, the cross-sectional study lacks system and continuity, and there is no way to get causal relationship. Future studies should consider using a longitudinal study design to test this process.
Ethics approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
All the authors have seen and approved the manuscript for publication.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Availability of data and material
Study data is available upon request.
Code availability
Model code is available upon request.
Additional information
Funding
References
- Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behaviour: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.830
- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Author.
- Baumeister, R. R., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165–195. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165
- Beres, M. A., Herold, E., & Maitland, S. B. (2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(5), 475–486.
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
- Burkett, M., & Hamilton, K. (2012). Postfeminist sexual agency: Young women’s negotiations of sexual consent. Sexualities, 15(7), 815–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460712454076
- Cao, Y. (2018). The influences of gender and attractiveness on sexual intent perceptions [Doctoral dissertation]. Southwestern University.
- Curtis, J. N., & Burnett, S. (2017). Affirmative consent: What do college student leaders think about “yes means yes” as the standard for sexual behavior? American Journal of Sexuality Education, 12(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2017.1328322
- Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343.
- Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (2004). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. In R. M. Kowalski & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The interface of social and clinical psychology: Key readings (pp. 173–198). Psychology Press.
- Engeler, I., & Raghubir, P. (2018). Decomposing the cross-sex misprediction bias of dating behaviors: Do men overestimate or women underreport their sexual intentions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000105
- Gilboa-Schechtman, E., Foa, E. B., & Amir, N. (1999). Attentional biases for facial expressions in social phobia: The face-in-the-crowd paradigm. Cognition & Emotion, 13(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379294
- Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81–91.
- Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551996
- Huang, D., & Zhang, R. (2017). Relationship between the sexual rejection and rejection sensitivity of cadets: Mediating effect of anxiety. Journal of Guizhou Normal University, 33(9), 47–51. (In Chinese).
- International Personality Item Pool. (2012). A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences [online]. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org.
- Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014). Gender differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Sex Research, 51(8), 904–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.792326
- Kavanagh, P. S., Robins, S. C., & Ellis, B. J. (2010). The mating sociometer: A regulatory mechanism for mating aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 120–132.
- Kennedy, B. L., Schwab, J. J., Morris, R. L., & Beldia, G. (2001). Assessment of state and trait anxiety in subjects with anxiety and depressive disorders. Psychiatric Quarterly, 72(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010305200087
- Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2001). An evolutionary–psychological approach to self-esteem: Multiple domains and multiple functions. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 411–436). Blackwell.
- Kohl, C., & Robertson, J. (2014). The sexual overperception bias: An exploration of the relationship between mate value and perception of sexual interest. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0097247
- Landolt, M. A., Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-V
- Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4701_8
- Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 32, 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
- Lindgren, K. P., Parkhill, M. R., George, W. H., & Hendershot, C. S. (2008). Gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent: A qualitative review and integration. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 423–439.
- Little, T. D. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences: Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
- MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. [Database] https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
- Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2016). The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 457–487.
- Murray, D. R., Murphy, S. C., von Hippel, W., Trivers, R., & Haselton, M. G. (2017). A preregistered study of competing predictions suggests that men do overestimate women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science, 28(2), 253–255.
- Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glass darkly? When self-doubts turn into relationship insecurities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1459–1480.
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.1. Muthén & Muthén.
- Nepomuceno, M. V., Saad, G., Stenstrom, E., Mendenhall, Z., & Iglesias, F. (2016). Testosterone & gift-giving: Mating confidence moderates the association between digit ratios (2D:4D and rel2) and erotic gift-giving. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.017
- Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: a more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
- Perilloux, C., & Kurzban, R. (2015). Do men overperceive women’s sexual interest? Psychological Science, 26(1), 70–77.
- Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23(2), 146–151.
- Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Social Forces, 3, 1780–1790.
- Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books.
- Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez-Reigosa, F., Martinez-Urrutia, A., Natalicio, L., & Natalicio, D. (1971). Development of the Spanish edition of the state-trait anxiety inventory. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 5, 3–4.
- Wan, Y. (2018). The relationship between heterosexual rejection, sense of power, self-esteem and mating behavior tendency [Master’s thesis]. Harbin Normal University.
- Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2008). The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale: Assessing a proposed cognitive component of social anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(1), 44–55.
- Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
- Zhang, J., Huang, D., He, M., Wang, Z., & Zeng, L. (2018). Relationship between heterosexual rejection and male cadet self-esteem: moderating effects of rejection sensitivity. Psychological Technology and Application, 6, 368–373. (In Chinese).
- Zhang, L., Liu, S., & Ruan, L. (2016). Long-term effects of heterosexual rejection on college students’ mate selection: a discussion based on the theory of social measurement. Psychological Science, 2016(39), 131–136. (In Chinese).
- Zhao, Y. L., Li, W. T., & Zhang, L. (2012). Revision of Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire for Chinese college students. China Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 1677–1680.