Sexual Dimensions of Person Description: Beyond or Subsumed by the Big Five? ☆

By D. Schmitt, David M. Buss. 2000

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16cb6a5454a033fc0af5336cf300e545b4d36660

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. P. Jonason
2. Kibeom Lee
3. M. Ashton
4. B. Visser
5. D. Schmitt
6. R. D. Vries
7. R. McCrae
8. Jüri Allik

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. P. Jonason
2. D. Schmitt
3. David M. Buss
4. Kibeom Lee
5. M. Ashton
6. T. Shackelford
7. Norman P. Li
8. B. Visser

Citations in the corpus

• The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity (2004, background): “Extraversion also has been linked to promiscuous sexual behaviour (Pinkerton & Abramson, 1995; Schenk & Pfrang, 1986; Schmitt & Buss, 2000; Wright, 1999) and to unsafe sexual practices (McCown, 1992).”
• Are men really more 'oriented' toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research (2001, background): “1997; Walter 1997) and with diverse research methods (e.g., Hassebrauck 1998; Malamuth 1996; Schmitt and Buss 2000; Speed and Gangestad 1997; Sprecher et al. 1994; Weiderman and Dubois 1998).”
• Mate-selection and the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment (2011, background): “In response to this realization, some have expanded the Big Five to include honesty and humility (Lee & Ashton, 2005); others have focused on mating (Schmitt & Buss, 2000; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) as important additions to our understanding of inter-individual variability.”
• Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals (2008, methodology): “Early approaches to identifying basic dimensions of personality were based on factor analyses of pools of personality adjectives, from which descriptors that differed between sexes were excluded (Schmitt & Buss, 2000).”
• Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality (2016, background): “…Gerhardt, & Le, 2004; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002), a larger social network (Selfhout et al., 2010), greater sexual attractiveness (Bourdage, Lee, Ashton, & Perry, 2007; Schmitt & Buss, 2000), and more offspring (Jokela et al., 2011; see Lukaszewski & von Rueden, 2015, for a review).”
• Critique of the five-factor model of personality (2008, unknown): “Evidently, the FFM as measured in the NEO-PI-R instrument provides only a partial description of the actual complexity of human personality structure (cf. Aluja et al., 2004; Shafer, 2001; Schmitt & Buss, 2000).”
• Sex, Power, and Money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty–Humility (2013, background): “Bourdage, Lee, Ashton, and Perry (2007) reported that Honesty–Humility was related to the Relationship Exclusivity scale of the ‘Sexy Seven’ variables (Schmitt & Buss, 2000) and to (restricted) Sociosexual Orientation (i.e. emotional commitment as a prerequisite for sexual activity; Gangestad &…”
• A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure (2005, background): “As noted by Schmitt and Buss (2000), the several factors of human sexuality are domain specific rather than domain general, and thus lack the explanatory scope of the broader lexically derived personality factors.”
• Sociosexuality and Romantic Relationships. (2004, background): “Seal, Agostinelli, and Hannett (1994) found that unrestricted individuals involved in exclusive dating relationships report being more willing to entertain and pursue other romantic involvements than is true of restricted individuals.”
• Are men universally more dismissing than women? Gender differences in romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions (2003, background): “…including measures of shortterm mating tendencies (Schmitt et al., 2001), the sociosexual orientation inventory (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), a survey of human mate-poaching experiences (Schmitt & Buss, 2001), and the ‘‘Sexy Seven’’ trait measure of sexual self-description (Schmitt & Buss, 2000).”
• The Geographic Distribution of Big Five Personality Traits (2007, methodology): “Also included were measures of adult romantic attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and multiple tools to capture variation in human sexuality, including measures of sociosexuality (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), short-term mating tendencies (Schmitt, Shackelford, Duntley, Tooke, & Buss, 2001), a s”
• The Evolution of Culturally-Variable Sex Differences: Men and Women Are Not Always Different, but When They Are…It Appears Not to Result from Patriarchy or Sex Role Socialization (2015, background): “Love Sex differences in love have been documented such that women report significantly higher levels of many love styles and emotional investment tendencies than men (Bailey et al. 1987; Hendrick and Hendrick 1995; Schmitt and Buss 2000).”
• Big Five Traits Related to Short-Term Mating: From Personality to Promiscuity across 46 Nations (2008, methodology): “Samples were then administered a measure of the “Sexy Seven” sexuality attributes (Schmitt and Buss, 2000).”
• Associations Between Religious Orientation and Varieties of Sexual Experience (2003, methodology): “Within a hierarchical model of personality (see Figure 1 in Schmitt and Buss 2000 ), these seven dimensions are a result of specific behavioral responses (Level 1) that form personal habits (Level 2), which in turn represent unique facets (Level 3) of the seven sexuality dimensions (Level 4). It is”