Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25299759›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior2014

What's in a kiss? The effect of romantic kissing on mating desirability.

Rafael Wlodarski, Robin I M Dunbar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rafael WlodarskiDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robin I M DunbarDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

European Research Council 295663
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Past research suggests that various courtship rituals, such as romantic kissing, may convey useful mate quality information. Two studies were carried out to examine how purported romantic kissing abilities, as a potential cue to some form of mate information, affect appraisals of potential mating partners. In Experiment 1, 724 participants were presented with vignette descriptions of potential mating partners and were asked to rate partner desirability for various mating-related situations. The primary result of this experiment was that purported kissing ability increased mate desirability in "casual sex" mating situations for women to a greater extent than for men. Experiment 2 repeated the same procedure with another 178 participants, this time including visual information alongside vignette descriptions containing kissing-related information to examine the relative effects of these two modalities. It was found that the presence of a picture alongside a descriptive vignette negated the effect of kissing-related information only when rating potential partners on attractiveness or desirability for further courtship, though not when evaluating partners for casual sex or long-term relationship scenarios. Visual information containing "attractive" photos of potential partners was also found to have a greater effect on men's ratings of partner desirability than on women's ratings of partner desirability. The results are discussed in light of romantic kissing's potential function of conveying important mate quality and desirability information, and its relative role in the presence of additional visual mate cues.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorAdolescentAdultCourtshipCuesFemaleHumansMaleMenMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationSexual PartnersSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomUnited StatesWomen

Identifiers

PMID25299759
PMCPMC4487818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.