ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2021
The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a New Mating Effort Questionnaire.
Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validating the Revised Mating Effort Questionnaire.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- A Psychometric Evaluation of the Intrasexual Competition Scale.Archives of sexual behavior · 2022Article
- Body Gaze as a Marker of Sexual Objectification: A New Scale for Pervasive Gaze and Gaze Provocation Behaviors in Heterosexual Women and Men.Archives of sexual behavior · 2022Article
- Sex Differences in Voyeuristic and Exhibitionistic Interests: Exploring the Mediating Roles of Sociosexuality and Sexual Compulsivity from an Evolutionary Perspective.Archives of sexual behavior · 2021Article
- Longitudinal Associations Between Primary and Secondary Psychopathic Traits, Delinquency, and Current Dating Status in Adolescence.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behaviorArticle
- Life History, Attachment and Romantic Relationship Outcomes in an Eastern European Adult Sample.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behaviorArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we review the psychometric literature on mating effort and find that extant instruments (1) have not been adequately evaluated in terms of internal structure and measurement invariance, and (2) disproportionately focus on mate retention and intrasexual competition tactics designed to repel competitors, relative to attraction and investment effort. To address these gaps in the literature, we carried out two studies to develop and validate a new Mating Effort Questionnaire (MEQ). In Study 1, we report a pilot study in which participants' responses to an item pool were submitted to exploratory factor analysis. In Study 2, we replicated the structure found in Study 1 using confirmatory factor analysis in an independent sample. A three-factor solution yielded the best fit. The three factors reflected respondents' allocation of energy to attracting high mate value partners when already mated, seeking out romantic partners when single, and investing in their current romantic partner and relationships. Strong partial measurement invariance held across the sexes, implying that observed scores may be used to compare them. We also found evidence of concurrent validity via associations between the MEQ and constructs such as sociosexual orientation, K-factor, mate retention behaviors, and respondents' sexual behavior. These findings suggest that the MEQ is a valid and novel measure of individual differences in mating effort which is well suited to complement existing mating effort measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32839933What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.