Online Supplemental Information For

Online Supplemental Information for

Reproductive Interests and Dimensions of Political Ideology

Contents

Appendix A1. Question Wording.

Table A1. Alternative Modelling of the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in Denmark and the United States.

Table A2. Associations of SDO's Sub-Dimensions and Sociosexual Orientation in the United States.

Table A3. Does Gender Moderate the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in Denmark and the United States?

Table A4. Does Subjective Social Status or Mate Value Moderate the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in Denmark?

Table A5. Does Socio-Economic Status Moderate the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in United States?

Table A6. Predicting Missing Values on Sociosexual Orientation Measure in United States.

Table A7. Associations between RWA, SDO and SDO-D with individual indicators of SOI in United States.

Table A8. Factor Analysis of Preferences for Specific Traits in Romantic Partners

Table A9. Alternative Decomposition of the Association Between SOI and SDO and RWA Using Factors from Table A8.

Figure A1. The Association Between Age and support for Unrestricted Sexual Strategies of Across the World.

Supplemental References

Appendix A1.Question Wording.

Sociosexual Orientation

To measure individual differences in mating strategies, I follow Kurzban et al. (2010) and use the sociosexual orientation inventory (SOI) (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), which is the standard measure of sociosexual orientation. Specifically, I used the seven questions suggested by PenkeAsendorpf (2008) from the original inventory, combining questions about sexual attitudes and sexual behaviors. Hence, in both surveys, sociosexual orientation was measured using the following questions: (1) "With how many different partners have you had sex within the past year?" (2) "How many different partners do you foresee yourself having sex with during the next five years?" (3) "With how many partners have you had sex on one and only one occasion?" (4) "How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current dating partner? (If you do not have a partner, then imagine how you would react if you were in a relationship)." (5) "Sex without love is okay." (6) "I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying ‘casual’ sex with different partners." (7) "I would have to be closely attached to someone (both emotionally and psychologically) before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with him or her" (reverse coded).

Items 1-3 were asked as open-ended questions and, following Simpson & Gangestad (1991), were recoded to vary between 1-9, 1-15 and 1-15 sexual partners, respectively. Answers to Item 4 were obtained on an 8-point scale from 1 ("Never") to 8 ("At least once a day"). Agreement with Items 5-7 was obtained on a 7-point scale (from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree"). While Simpson & Gangestad (1991) originally used a 9-point scale, I opted for the 7-point scale to create consistency with the other Likert items in the survey. Finally, it should be noted that the wording of one item (Item 4) was changed slightly to make the question answerable by participants who were not in a relationship at the time of the study. In the question wording presented by PenkeAsendorpf (2008: 1114), this item was worded, ”How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current dating partner?”

Following the procedure of Simpson and Gangestad (1991), the answers to these items were summed to a reliable scale (Denmark: α = .65; United States: α = .71). The scale was subsequently recoded to vary between 0 and 1, with higher values corresponding to a more unrestricted sexual strategy.

Social Dominance Orientation

In Denmark, respondents were asked a balanced subset of six items from the 16-items SDO6 scale developed in Pratto et al. (1994). Specifically, the respondents were asked to indicate on 7-point scales to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: (1) "To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups."; (2) "If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems."; (3) "Inferior groups should stay in their place."; (4) "It would be good if groups could be equal." (reverse-coded); (5) "All groups should be given an equal chance in life." (reverse-coded); and (6) "We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible." (reverse coded). Answer were summed into a scale with satisfactory reliability (=.70).

In United States, the SDO7(s) Scale from Ho et al. (2015) was used to measure SDO. It consists of questions about how strongly the respondent opposes or favors the following statements: (1) "An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom"; (2) "Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups"; (3) "No one group should dominate in society (reverse coded); (3) Groups at the bottom are just as deserving as groups at the top" (reverse coded); (4) "Group equality should NOT be our primary goal" (emphasis on 'not' added compared to original scale to avoid this qualifier being overlooked by less attentive respondents in a nationally representative, online setting); (5) "It is unjust to try to make groups equal"; (6) "We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups" (reverse coded); (7) "We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed" (reverse coded). Answers were obtained on a 7-point scale from "Strongly oppose" to "Strongly favor" and summed into a reliable scale of overall SDO (=.84). In addition, following the guidelines by Ho et al. (2015), measures of the dominance (SDO-D; items 1-4) and egalitarianism (SDO-E; items 5-8) components of SDO(SDO-D=.68;SDO-E=.79).

Right-Wing Authoritarianism

In United States, RWA was measured using a a balanced subset of 6 items chosen form the 34-items RWA scale in Altemeyer (1996: 13).The respondents were asked to indicate on 7-point scales to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: “There is no ‘ONE right way’ to live life; everybody has to create their own way” (reverse coded); “Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the ‘rotten apples’ who are ruining everything”; “Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else” (reverse coded); “Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the ‘normal way things are supposed to be done’” (reverse coded); “Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people” (reverse coded); “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.” The answers were summed together to a scale with less than ideal levels of reliability (=.58).

In United States, RWA was measured using a a balanced subset of 8 items chosen from the shorter15-item RWA scale introduced by Zakrisson (2005).The respondents were asked to indicate on 7-point scales to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: (1) "Our country needs free thinkers, who will have the courage to stand up against traditional ways, even if this upsets many people." (reverse coded); (2) "Our society would be better off if we showed tolerance and understanding for untraditional values and opinions." (reverse coded); (3) "It would be best if newspapers were censored so that people would not be able to get hold of destructive and disgusting material."; (4) "Our forefathers ought to be honored more for the way they have built our society, at the same time we ought to put an end to those forces destroying it."; (5) "There are many radical, immoral people trying to ruin things; the society ought to stop them."; (6) "It is better to accept bad literature than to censor it." (reverse coded); (7) "The situation in the society of today would be improved if troublemakers were treated with reason and humanity." (reverse coded); and (8) "If the society so wants, it is the duty of every true citizen to help eliminate the evil that poisons our country from within." Answers were summed together to a scale with acceptable levels of reliability (=.70).

Mate value

The Danish survey contained a novel measure of self-perceived mate value. Specifically, respondents were asked the following question: "Many people look for particular traits when they choose their potential spouse. Some of the traits that often are seen as attractive are: to be socially interesting, to have a particular age, to physically attractive, to have a good sense of humour, to have a good income and a good job, to be intelligent, to have a good health and to like children. Generally speaking, how attractive as a partner would you evaluate yourself on the scale below?". Respondents were then presented with a 11-point scale ranging from "Not very attractive" (0) to "Very attractive (10).

Preferences for Particular Traits in Partners

The Danish survey contained a novel measure of preferences for a range of specific traits in romantic partners. Specifically, respondents were asked: "Imagine that you want to engage in a romantic relationship. Are you attracted to, indifferent to or repulsed by the following traits in relation to starting a relationship with a person? Evaluate each of the traits on the scale below." Respondents were presented with an 11-point scale ranging from "Extremely repulsed" (0) over "Indifferent" (5) to "Extremely attracted" (10) and presented with a list of 14 specific descriptors, presented in a random order. These descriptors were chosen to reflect the seven partner traits, with one descriptor worded negatively and one worded positively. Evaluation of each of the descriptors were recoded, summed together to a preference for the partner traits ranging from 0 to 1. The seven partner traits were the following: (1) seeking commitment, (2) faithful, (3) sexually experienced, (4) wealthy, (5) ambitious, (6) family-oriented and (7) physically attractive. The descriptors designed to tap preferences for each of these traits were the following: (1) "Is looking for a stable relationship" and "Is looking for a short-term affair" (reverse coded);(2) "Is chaste" and "Has been unfaithful to former partners"(reverse coded);(3) "Has had many sexual partners" and "Is sexually inexperienced" (reverse coded); (4) "Has a promising career" and "Lacks ambitions" (reverse coded);(5) "Earns alot of money" and "Is poor" (reverse coded);(6) "Is willing to sacrifice everything for their children" and "Would prioritize themselves higher than their family" (reverse coded);(7) "Is good looking" and "Is average looking " (reverse coded).

The coding of the specific traits reflects the theoretical concepts guiding the construction of the battery. To probe the robustness of the conclusions based on this theoretically-guided coding, the items were also subjected to a factor analysis. The result is reported in Table A8 in this appendix. As can be seen, three factors were returned: (1) preferences for resourceful, committed partners for long-term relationships; (2) indiscriminate preferences for any kind of trait; and (3) preferences for low status, committed partners for long-term relationships (or, as reflected by the opposite pole of the factor, preferences for high-status, promiscuous, short-term mates). These three factors are correlated with SOI in the following way: (1) r = -.26, p<.001; (2) r = .27, p<.001; (4) r = -.21, p<.001. Furthermore, the factors were computed from the factor analysis and rescaled to vary between 0 and 1. They were then used to decompose the associations between, on the one hand, SOI and, on the other hand, SDO and RWA (see Table A9). Consistent with the analyses reported in the main text, the results show that it is the third factor that mainly drives these associations, i.e., variation in preferences relating to high-status, sexually experienced, short-term mates.

Table A1. Alternative Modelling of the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in Denmark and the United States.

Sample / Denmark / United States
Model / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Dependent variable / RWA / SDO / RWA / SDO
Sociosexual Orientation / -0.05**
(0.02) / 0.08***
(0.02) / -0.11***
(0.02) / 0.04**
(0.02)
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) / - / 0.45***
(0.02) / - / 0.37***
(0.02)
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) / 0.36***
(0.02) / - / 0.42***
(0.02) / -
Gender: Female / 0.01
(0.01) / -0.06***
(0.01) / -0.00
(0.00) / -0.02***
(0.00)
Age / 0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / 0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00*
(0.00)
Race: White / - / - / -0.02***
(0.00) / 0.02***
(0.00)
Religiosity / 0.14***
(0.01) / -0.05**
(0.02) / 0.10***
(0.01) / 0.01
(0.01)
Education / 0.07***
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01) / -0.07***
(0.01) / 0.02*
(0.01)
Stable Relationship: No / -0.01
(0.01) / -0.02**
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.00) / -0.02***
(0.00)
Constant / 0.11***
(0.02) / 0.29***
(0.02) / 0.48***
(0.01) / 0.16***
(0.02)
N / 1909 / 1909 / 1710 / 1710
R2 / 0.254 / 0.207 / 0.428 / 0.225

Table A2. Associations of SDO's Sub-Dimensions and Sociosexual Orientation in the United States.

Sample / United States
Model / 1 / 2
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) / -0.27***
(0.04) / -0.23***
(0.03)
SDO - Dominance (SDO-D) / 0.14***
(0.04) / -
SDO - Egalitarianism (SDO-E) / - / 0.05
(0.03)
Gender: Female / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01)
Age / -0.00*
(0.00) / -0.00*
(0.00)
Race: White / 0.00
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01)
Religiosity / -0.09***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01)
Education / 0.02
(0.01) / 0.02*
(0.01)
Stable Relationship: No / 0.02**
(0.01) / 0.02*
(0.01)
Constant / 0.50***
(0.03) / 0.51***
(0.02)
N / 1708 / 1710
R2 / 0.280 / 0.274

Table A3. Does Gender Moderate the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in Denmark and the United States?

Sample / Denmark / United States
Model / 1 / 2 / 3
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) / -0.02
(0.04) / -0.28***
(0.05) / -0.31***
(0.05)
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) / 0.15***
(0.03) / 0.15**
(0.05) / -
SDO - Dominance (SDO-D) / - / - / 0.18***
(0.05)
Gender: Female / -0.02
(0.02) / -0.11**
(0.04) / -0.11**
(0.04)
RWA  Female / -0.13*
(0.05) / 0.05
(0.06) / 0.07
(0.06)
SDO  Female / -0.11*
(0.05) / -0.06
(0.08) / -
SDO-D  Female / - / - / -0.08
(0.07)
Age / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00*
(0.00) / -0.00*
(0.00)
Race: White / - / 0.00
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01)
Religiosity / 0.09***
(0.01) / 0.02**
(0.01) / -0.09***
(0.01)
Education / -0.08***
(0.02) / 0.02*
(0.01) / 0.02
(0.01)
Stable Relationship: No / -0.04**
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01) / 0.02**
(0.01)
Constant / 0.37***
(0.02) / 0.51***
(0.03) / 0.51***
(0.03)
N / 1909 / 1710 / 1708
R2 / 0.155 / 0.277 / 0.281

Table A4. Does Subjective Social Status or Mate Value Moderate the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in Denmark?

Sample / Denmark
Model / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) / -0.10
(0.09) / -0.06
(0.14) / -0.08**
(0.03) / -0.02
(0.09) / 0.05
(0.14) / -0.08**
(0.03)
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) / 0.11
(0.08) / 0.15
(0.12) / 0.17+
(0.10) / 0.06
(0.07) / 0.03
(0.11) / 0.05
(0.10)
Gender: Female / -0.10***
(0.01) / - / -0.05
(0.06) / -0.10***
(0.01) / - / -0.11+
(0.06)
Age / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00**
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00)
Religiosity / -0.08***
(0.02) / -0.07**
(0.03) / -0.07***
(0.02) / -0.07***
(0.02) / -0.06*
(0.03) / -0.07***
(0.02)
Education / -0.04**
(0.01) / -0.04+
(0.02) / -0.04**
(0.01) / -0.04**
(0.01) / -0.03+
(0.02) / -0.03**
(0.01)
Stable Relationship: No / 0.09***
(0.01) / 0.07***
(0.02) / 0.09***
(0.01) / 0.09***
(0.01) / 0.08***
(0.02) / 0.09***
(0.01)
Subjective Social Status / -0.01
(0.06) / -0.03
(0.09) / -0.01
(0.07) / - / - / -
Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / 0.05
(0.06) / 0.02
(0.09) / -0.02
(0.07)
RWA  Subjective Social Status / 0.05
(0.14) / 0.06
(0.21) / - / - / - / -
SDO  Subjective Social Status / -0.02
(0.12) / -0.00
(0.18) / 0.01
(0.15) / - / - / -
SDO  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / -0.09
(0.13) / -0.11
(0.21) / -
SDO  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / 0.04
(0.11) / 0.17
(0.17) / 0.16
(0.14)
SDO  Female / - / - / -0.16
(0.15) / - / - / 0.04
(0.15)
Female  Subjective Social Status / - / - / 0.00
(0.09) / - / - / -
SDO  Female  Subjective Social Status / - / - / 0.01
(0.23) / - / - / -
Female  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / - / - / 0.09
(0.09)
SDO  Female  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / - / - / -0.30
(0.22)
Constant / 0.42***
(0.04) / 0.39***
(0.06) / 0.39***
(0.05) / 0.38***
(0.04) / 0.36***
(0.07) / 0.40***
(0.05)
N / 1909 / 943 / 1909 / 1867 / 923 / 1867
R2 / 0.147 / 0.079 / 0.152 / 0.150 / 0.081 / 0.156

Table A4. Does Subjective Social Status or Mate Value Moderate the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in Denmark?

Sample / Denmark
Model / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Gender / Both / Males / Both / Both / Males / Both
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) / -0.10
(0.09) / -0.06
(0.14) / -0.08**
(0.03) / -0.02
(0.09) / 0.05
(0.14) / -0.08**
(0.03)
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) / 0.11
(0.08) / 0.15
(0.12) / 0.17+
(0.10) / 0.06
(0.07) / 0.03
(0.11) / 0.05
(0.10)
Gender: Female / -0.10***
(0.01) / - / -0.05
(0.06) / -0.10***
(0.01) / - / -0.11+
(0.06)
Age / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00**
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00)
Religiosity / -0.08***
(0.02) / -0.07**
(0.03) / -0.07***
(0.02) / -0.07***
(0.02) / -0.06*
(0.03) / -0.07***
(0.02)
Education / -0.04**
(0.01) / -0.04+
(0.02) / -0.04**
(0.01) / -0.04**
(0.01) / -0.03+
(0.02) / -0.03**
(0.01)
Stable Relationship: No / 0.09***
(0.01) / 0.07***
(0.02) / 0.09***
(0.01) / 0.09***
(0.01) / 0.08***
(0.02) / 0.09***
(0.01)
Subjective Social Status / -0.01
(0.06) / -0.03
(0.09) / -0.01
(0.07) / - / - / -
Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / 0.05
(0.06) / 0.02
(0.09) / -0.02
(0.07)
RWA  Subjective Social Status / 0.05
(0.14) / 0.06
(0.21) / - / - / - / -
SDO  Subjective Social Status / -0.02
(0.12) / -0.00
(0.18) / 0.01
(0.15) / - / - / -
SDO  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / -0.09
(0.13) / -0.11
(0.21) / -
SDO  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / 0.04
(0.11) / 0.17
(0.17) / 0.16
(0.14)
SDO  Female / - / - / -0.16
(0.15) / - / - / 0.04
(0.15)
Female  Subjective Social Status / - / - / 0.00
(0.09) / - / - / -
SDO  Female  Subjective Social Status / - / - / 0.01
(0.23) / - / - / -
Female  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / - / - / 0.09
(0.09)
SDO  Female  Subjective Mate Value / - / - / - / - / - / -0.30
(0.22)
Constant / 0.42***
(0.04) / 0.39***
(0.06) / 0.39***
(0.05) / 0.38***
(0.04) / 0.36***
(0.07) / 0.40***
(0.05)
N / 1909 / 943 / 1909 / 1867 / 923 / 1867
R2 / 0.147 / 0.079 / 0.152 / 0.150 / 0.081 / 0.156

Table A5. Does Socio-Economic Status Moderate the Associations of Ideology and Sociosexual Orientation in United States?

Sample / United States
Model / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) / -0.32***
(0.05) / -0.29***
(0.05) / -0.32***
(0.05) / -0.30***
(0.05)
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) / 0.15*
(0.06) / 0.04
(0.06)
SDO - Dominance (SDO-D) / 0.15*
(0.06) / 0.09
(0.06)
Gender: Female / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01)
Age / -0.00*
(0.00) / -0.00*
(0.00) / -0.00*
(0.00) / -0.00+
(0.00)
1.white / 0.00
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01)
Religiosity / -0.09***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.09***
(0.01) / -0.09***
(0.01)
Education / 0.02*
(0.01) / 0.02
(0.01) / 0.02*
(0.01) / 0.02
(0.01)
Stable Relationship: No / 0.02**
(0.01) / 0.02**
(0.01) / 0.02**
(0.01) / 0.02**
(0.01)
Present Socio-Economic Status (SES) / -0.06
(0.07) / - / -0.08
(0.07) / -
Childhood Socio-Economic Status (SES) / - / -0.12
(0.08) / - / -0.10
(0.08)
RWA  Present SES / 0.14
(0.10) / - / 0.12
(0.10) / -
SDO  Present SES / -0.11
(0.13) / - / - / -
SDO  Childhood SES / - / 0.10
(0.12) / - / 0.10
(0.11)
SDO  Childhood SES / - / 0.16
(0.14) / - / -
SDO-D  Childhood SES / - / - / -0.03
(0.12) / -
SDO-D  Childhood SES / - / - / - / 0.11
(0.14)
Constant / 0.53***
(0.04) / 0.55***
(0.04) / 0.53***
(0.04) / 0.54***
(0.04)
N / 1706 / 1708 / 1705 / 1706
R2 / 0.281 / 0.279 / 0.284 / 0.282

Table A6. Predicting Missing Values on Sociosexual Orientation Measure in United States.

Sample / United States
Model / 1
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) / 0.50
(0.56)
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) / 1.49*
(0.59)
Gender: Female / -0.17+
(0.10)
Age / -0.00
(0.00)
Race: White / -0.35**
(0.11)
Religiosity / 0.02
(0.15)
Education / -0.56***
(0.17)
Stable Relationship: No / 0.37***
(0.10)
Openness to Experience / -0.70*
(0.30)
Conscientiousness / -0.25
(0.28)
Extroversion / 0.07
(0.21)
Agreeableness / -0.59*
(0.30)
Neuroticism / -0.23
(0.24)
Constant / -0.02
(0.48)
N / 2369
R2 / 0.034

Notes. Entries are unstandardized logisticregression coefficients. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. The dependent variable is a dichotomous measure of whether the participant is missing on the final SOI measure (a value of 1) or not (a value of 0). All variables except age have been recoded to vary between 0 and 1. +p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, p-values are two-tailed.

Table A7. Associations between RWA, SDO and SDO-D with individual indicators of SOI in United States.

Sample / United States
Model / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10
Dependent Variable / SOI 1 / SOI 2 / SOI 3 / SOI 4 / SOI 5 / SOI 1 / SOI 2 / SOI 3 / SOI 4 / SOI 5
RWA / -0.13***
(0.04) / -0.20***
(0.04) / -0.19**
(0.07) / -0.18***
(0.03) / -0.37***
(0.08) / -0.13***
(0.04) / -0.20***
(0.04) / -0.22**
(0.07) / -0.22***
(0.03) / -0.39***
(0.08)
SDO / 0.06
(0.04) / 0.08+
(0.04) / 0.10
(0.07) / 0.10***
(0.03) / 0.29***
(0.08) / - / - / - / - / -
SDO-D / - / - / - / - / - / 0.09*
(0.04) / 0.09*
(0.04) / 0.15*
(0.07) / 0.11***
(0.03) / 0.35***
(0.08)
Gender: Female / -0.03***
(0.01) / -0.06***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.07***
(0.00) / -0.28***
(0.01) / -0.03***
(0.01) / -0.06***
(0.01) / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.07***
(0.00) / -0.28***
(0.01)
Age / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / 0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00
(0.00) / -0.00
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00***
(0.00) / 0.00***
(0.00) / -0.00
(0.00) / 0.00
(0.00)
Race: White / -0.01
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01) / 0.01
(0.01) / -0.00
(0.01) / -0.04*
(0.02) / -0.01
(0.01) / 0.00
(0.01) / 0.01
(0.01) / -0.00
(0.01) / -0.03*
(0.02)
Religiosity / -0.03**
(0.01) / -0.03**
(0.01) / -0.09***
(0.02) / -0.11***
(0.01) / -0.17***
(0.02) / -0.03**
(0.01) / -0.03**
(0.01) / -0.09***
(0.02) / -0.10***
(0.01) / -0.17***
(0.02)
Education / 0.01
(0.01) / 0.03*
(0.01) / 0.03
(0.02) / 0.01
(0.01) / 0.08***
(0.02) / 0.01
(0.01) / 0.03*
(0.01) / 0.03
(0.02) / 0.01
(0.01) / 0.08***
(0.02)
Stable Relationship: No / -0.03***
(0.01) / 0.06***
(0.01) / 0.01
(0.01) / 0.01
(0.00) / 0.02+
(0.01) / -0.03***
(0.01) / 0.06***
(0.01) / 0.01
(0.01) / 0.01
(0.00) / 0.02
(0.01)
Constant / 0.28***
(0.03) / 0.29***
(0.03) / 0.22***
(0.05) / 0.69***
(0.02) / 0.67***
(0.05) / 0.26***
(0.03) / 0.28***
(0.03) / 0.21***
(0.05) / 0.72***
(0.02) / 0.65***
(0.06)
N / 2109 / 2065 / 1976 / 2445 / 2244 / 2105 / 2061 / 1972 / 2439 / 2238
R2 / 0.057 / 0.138 / 0.086 / 0.237 / 0.244 / 0.058 / 0.138 / 0.087 / 0.247 / 0.247

Notes. Entries are unstandardized OLS regression coefficients. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. All variables except age have been recoded to vary between 0 and 1. The dependent variables consists of the five different indicators used to create the overall SOI scale: (SOI 1) "With how many different partners have you had sex within the past year?" (SOI 2) "How many different partners do you foresee yourself having sex with during the next five years?" (SOI 3) "With how many partners have you had sex on one and only one occasion?" (SOI 4) Index of agreement with the statements (a) "Sex without love is okay." (b) "I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying ‘casual’ sex with different partners." (c) "I would have to be closely attached to someone (both emotionally and psychologically) before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with him or her" (reverse coded). (SOI 5) "How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current dating partner? (If you do not have a partner, then imagine how you would react if you were in a relationship)."+p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, p-values are two-tailed.