Personality and Individual Differences 92 (2016) 1115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Ladies, know yourselves! Gentlemen, fool yourselves! Evolved self-promotion

traits as predictors for promiscuous sexual behavior in both sexes
Kevin Koban , Peter Ohler
Institute for Media Research, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Creating a convincing self-presentation which exalts one's own capabilities on the surface is often regarded as a
Received 7 October 2015 crucial soft skill ensuring success in numerous interpersonal domains. Seen from an evolutionary perspective,
Received in revised form 25 November 2015 strategic self-promotion might have evolved as a benecial psychological mechanism in mating competition.
Accepted 27 November 2015
While prior research is almost exclusively focused on different behavioral patterns, the present study examines
Available online 12 December 2015
relations between self-promotion and mating behavior on a trait level. Based on existing ndings, we identied
Keywords:
three different traits corresponding with determined self-presentation styles: impression management, self-
Self-promotion deceptive enhancement, and self-monitoring. Using a sample of 232 heterosexual participants (f = 143; age
Deception M = 23.88 years; SD = 3.42 years), we tested to what extent these traits predict sociosexual orientation as
Self-deception well as the total number of intercourse partners in both sexes. Notwithstanding gender, all chosen traits showed
Self-monitoring a positive prediction towards short-term mating behavior. By taking sex differences into consideration, however,
Mating the results indicated that self-deception was a stronger predictor for promiscuous mating behavior in men com-
Sex differences pared to women, whereas impression management showed minor differences and self-monitoring even re-
vealed an opposite trend. These ndings suggest that women may possess more rigorous deception detection
mechanisms forcing men to apply subtler self-promotion strategies.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction maladaptive (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). Therein, a number

Strategic self-promotion proved to be more likely the rule than the
exception not only in competitive working environments, but also in
human mating competition (Fisher & Cox, 2011). Seen from an evolu-
tionary perspective, this behavioral tendency has its biological roots in
a lack of clear tness indicators opening up the door for unwarranted
fakery. With this in mind, self-promotion can be characterized as an in-
ated display of one's own tness within a reliability-seeking interper-
sonal environment. This psychological mechanism might have evolved
to increase perceived mate value leading to a quantitative and qualita-
tive improvement in reproduction until true tness gets revealed
(Schmitt & Buss, 1996).
Just recently some authors constituted an evolutionary psychologi-
cal framework for personality explaining the variety of existing traits
(Buss, 2009; Penke, Denissen, & Miller, 2007). Accordingly, different
personality traits need to be regarded as highly discriminative psycho-
logical mechanisms, which evolved due to context-contingent tness
benets within a multifaceted social environment. Using this approach,
currently a great deal of research is concerned with an evolutionary
justication of the so-called dark triad traits, otherwise referred to as
of studies demonstrated that individuals high on one or more of these
characteristics were more often involved in behaviors commonly asso-
ciated with a fast life (such as mate poaching), which are considered
benecial under specic environmental conditions (Jonason, Koenig, &
Tost, 2010).
Complementary to factual acts of self-promotion, particular traits
might provide a favorable intrapersonal environment for these self-
enhancing behavioral patterns. In this sense, dispositional tendencies
which determine the processing of self-related information and, associ-
ated therewith, both individuals' self-perception and self-presentation
might reveal a supportive function for self-promotion behaviors. Based
on this consideration, the current examination addresses three distinct
dispositions which differ conceptually in its relations to authenticity is-
sues concerning an inated tness display: impression management,
self-monitoring, and self-deceptive enhancement. Additionally, follow-
ing the major assumption of sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt,
1993), these self-promotion traits might have evolved as solutions to
context-specic adaptive mating problems.
2. Current study

Corresponding author at: Institute for Media Research, Chemnitz University of

Evolutionary psychological research emphasized the adaptive rele-
Technology, D-09107, Germany. vance of deceptive acts (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). On a trait level,
E-mail address: kevin.koban@phil.tu-chemnitz.de (K. Koban). several authors were able to detect connections between the use of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.056
0191-8869/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
12 K. Koban, P. Ohler / Personality and Individual Differences 92 (2016) 1115
deceptive tactics and dark triad personalities (e.g., Brewer & Abell, 2015;
Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014). These dispositions might
have evolved as short-dated cheater strategies which maximize, at
least temporarily, the chances of successful interpersonal deception
(Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). Analogically, a global disposi-
tion towards deceptive self-presentation might be evolutionary advan-
tageous for short-term mating contexts as it considerably enhances
an individual's perceived tness while taking the risk of detection.
Therefore, we supposed that a disposition towards deceptive self-
presentation positively predicts short-term mating orientation (H1a)
and total number of intercourse partners (H1b).
Prior research established a positive relationship between a disposi-
tion towards self-monitoring and successful deceit (Johnson et al.,
2005). High levels of self-directed attention, thus, assure a continuously
adjusted self-perception which reduces the risk of fatal inconsistencies.
Additionally, this characteristic might lead to a more believable and,
therefore, more likeable self-presentation (Robinson, Johnson, & Shields,
1995) without making any claim for actual accuracy (Wilson &
Dunn, 2004). Resulting in a higher sensitivity towards slight inconsis-
tencies in self-presentation, this disposition might have evolved facili-
tating chances in prolonged courtship. Accordingly, self-monitoring
also might be benecial in terms of mate retention. To adjust one's
own self-presentation to necessary requirements of several, sometimes
critical relationship situations, therefore, might strengthen partner's
commitment and, therefore, stabilize an individual's sex life. Neverthe-
less, this function might be most advantageous in the beginning of a ro-
mantic relationship, perhaps leading to earlier sexual contact between
prospective partners or even supporting instrumental mating behavior.
Based on these considerations, we expected that self-monitoring posi-
tively predicts short-term mating orientation (H2a) and total number
of intercourse partners (H2b) as well.
Alongside with wide-ranging evidence for its adaptive value as
kind of psychological immune system (Gilbert, 2006; Surbey, 2011),
other authors strongly advocate that self-deception additionally fullls
an offensive evolutionary function (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011). The
rationale underlying this assumption is that by truly believing a self-
exaltation, authenticity issues can be either avoided or plausibly denied.
According to this argument, self-deception has evolved in order to de-
ceive others without suffering risks of detection. Yet these benets are
limited. In an innovative study by Epley and Whitchurch (2008) in
which participants had to search for a more or less favorable morphed
portraits of themselves among an array of numerous distractor pictures,
it was found that not an accurate, but a slightly more pleasant version of
the participants' appearance was recognized the fastest as it, thus, can
be assigned to an unconsciously enhanced self-perception. Interesting-
ly, however, even more pleasantly morphed portraits needed more
time for getting identied indicating that these were not sufciently au-
thentic to be accepted as portraits. Therefore, self-deceptive enhance-
ments might be restricted to slight improvements of one's own tness.
To the best knowledge of the authors, so far only a single study con-
ducted by Lynn, Pipitone, and Keenan (2014) dealt with self-deceptive
enhancement in mating context. Therein, self-deception positively
predicted mating success in females, but not in males. Due to a rather
young and, above all, sexually inexperienced sample these ndings
need to be expanded empirically in order to assure its generalizability.
Following the argument proposed by von Hippel and Trivers (2011),
we assumed that a self-deceptive enhancement would positively pre-
dict both short-term mating orientation (H3a) and plurality of inter-
course partners (H3b).
Self-deception unites a limitedly exalting tness display with a
subjectively accurate self-perception and, therefore, ensures a slightly
inated but nonetheless authentic self-presentation. Analogously, self-
monitoring can be considered ambiguous as it supports deceptive
courtship as well as retention in long-term relationships. Compared
to the take it or leave it minded disposition towards deceptive self-
presentation, both dispositions therefore may produce a more cautious
self-presentation; for that reason, latter traits might not be considered
as pure short-term mating strategies. Based on these assumptions, we
asked which self-promotion trait demonstrates the strongest prediction
value regarding the chosen mating parameters (RQ).
Ever since its emergence as a discipline, large amounts of evolu-
tionary psychological literature investigated sex differences in human
sexuality taking into consideration diverse aspects of mating-related
behavior (e.g. Buss, 1989). Mostly, these variations were attributed to
differential parental investment in both sexes: While men spend com-
paratively little effort in sexual reproduction, women inevitably take
on the major costs (Trivers, 1972). Bearing greater loss for being de-
ceived, women might have developed superior deception detection
mechanisms. Accordingly, prior research has shown that even though
both sexes did not differ quantitatively in their use of self-promotion
(Fisher & Cox, 2011), women are warier towards sexually deceptive
behavior than men (e.g., Kruger et al., 2013). As being less vulnerable
to detection, we assumed that self-deception might be an efcient
short-term mating strategy only in men and, therefore, more predictive
of men's short-term mating orientation (H4a) and total number of in-
tercourse partners compared to women (H4b).
By contrast, previous research examining receptivity towards loose
sexual offers indicated that men often are lacking a sufcient motivation
to detect possible deceptions making subtle strategies ineffective or
perhaps even counterproductive (e.g. Clark & Hateld, 1989; Hald &
Hgh-Olesen, 2010). Based on this consideration, we expected that rela-
tions between impression management and short-term mating orienta-
tion (H5a) as well as plurality of intercourse partners (H5b) might be
stronger in women compared to men.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The study sample consisted of 235 heterosexual participants, who
were recruited via university mailing lists and social networking groups.
Since we excluded three outliers due to their age (z-values of 6.95, 6.74,
and 4.89) the nal sample consisted of 232 participants (age M = 23.88
years, SD = 3.42 years, range: 1840 years) including 143 women and
89 men. Furthermore, two additional participants with exceptionally
great number of intercourse partners (z-values of 10.24 and 8.08) as
well as two who did not specify their current relationship status were
partially excluded from particular analyses.
3.2. Measures and procedure
Self-monitoring disposition was assessed by means of the 27-item
Self-Directed Attention Questionnaire (SAM; Filipp & Freudenberg,
1989), though effectively only the 9-item private self-directed attention
subscale was applied. This modication is based on an empirical argu-
ment provided by Hoyer and Kunst (2001), who differentiate between
the process (private self-directed attention subscale) and the result of
self-directed attention (self-knowledge) by means of factorial analysis.
Since we were only interested in the former, the items of the latter di-
mension were excluded from the questionnaire. Therein, participants
rated how much statements like I realize as I observe myself corre-
spond to themselves on a 6-point Likert scale. For statistical analysis,
all items were added and averaged creating an index of self-monitoring
tendency ( = .805).
Dispositional self-deception as well as deceptive behavioral tenden-
cies were measured via the 40-item Balanced Inventory of Desirable
Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1988). For each of the items, participants
stated to what extent they agree with several statements on a 7-point
Likert scale. Thereby, the rst half of the scale reects a disposition
towards self-deceptive enhancement (BIDR-SDE) by providing indis-
putable testimonies, whose outright denial or afrmation can be
regarded as delusive. For instance, full agreement with a statement
 K. Koban, P. Ohler / Personality and Individual Differences 92 (2016) 1115
such as I always know why I like things appears to be insincere as
some uncertainty towards personal preferences always exists. There-
fore, a strong afrmation expresses the inuence of self-serving biases
or, in other words, self-deceptive enhancement. Contrary to the dichot-
omized evaluation procedure proposed by Paulhus (1988), we followed
Stber, Dette, and Musch (2002) by simply adding and averaging con-
tinuous item scores to create an index without further data transforma-
tion ( = .791). Likewise, the same procedure was carried out assessing
individual tendencies towards impression management (BIDR-IM;
e.g., I sometimes tell lies if I have to), using the second 20 items of
the BIDR (Paulhus, 1988; = .767).
We employed two separate measurements assessing subjects' sexual
behavior. First, participants completed the 9-item Revised Sociosexual
Orientation Inventory (SOI-R; Penke & Asendorpf, 2008), which consists
of three dimensions each with three items regarding mating attitudes
(e.g., Sex without love is OK), desires (e.g., How often do you have
fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed
romantic relationship with?) and actual behaviors (e.g., With how
many different partners have you had sexual intercourse without having
an interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person?)
On separate scales for each dimension participants specied their level
of agreement or correspondence. As a result, high values point to
short-term mating orientation, while low values indicate long-term
mating orientation. However, only the behavioral component of the
scale (SOI-R-B) was integrated into further analyses ( = .807)
as both individuals' attitudes and desires are traditionally considered
having little impact on actual behavior. Additionally, we applied various
open-ended items concerning diverse mating details such as the total
number of intercourse partners or an estimate of participants' longest
relationships.
The entire study was conducted online using the PHP based
LimeSurvey web-application. The survey was divided in three parts,
which were received in pre-determined order: First, items concerning
the three aforementioned self-promotion traits were presented followed,
secondly, by measures of mating behavior. Both sets of questionnaires
were internally randomized. Finally, we asked for participants' sex,
age, current relationship status and sexual orientation. Within these
parts, the order of both questionnaires and items was automatically
randomized.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive analyses
Overall means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. In
order to further illustrate sex differences in the sample, several t-tests
were calculated indicating signicant medium-sized effects in age
(t (230) = 4.33; p b .01; d = 0.58) and self-deceptive enhance-
ment (t (230) = 3.97; p b .01; d = 0.54) as well as small effects
around the 5% signicance level in duration of reproductive activity
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for All Integrated Variables.
Variables Overall Men
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Age 23.87 (3.42) 25.06 (3.82)
Years of reproductive activity 7.20 (3.91) 7.90 (4.57)
Longest relationship 36.10 (35.70) 33.90 (30.42)
SAM 4.44 (0.75) 4.42 (0.79)
BIDR-SDE 4.04 (0.73) 4.27 (0.72)
BIDR-IM 4.18 (0.80) 4.31 (0.76)
SOI-R-B 2.33 (1.01) 2.29 (1.02)
Intercourse partners 6.00 (6.13) 5.79 (6.51)
Notes: p-values are two-sided. d is Cohen's d for effect size. Sex is coded 0 = male (n = 89; 87 in longest relationship and intercourse partners variable), 1 = female (n = 143; 141 in
SOI-R-B variable). SAM = private self-directed attention subscale of the Self-Directed Attention Questionnaire; BIDR-SDE = self-deceptive enhancement subscale of the Balanced Inven-
tory of Desirable Responding; BIDR-IM = impression management subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding; SOI-R-B = behavior subscale of the Revised Sociosexual
Orientation Inventory.
13
(t (147.41) = 2.02; p = .05; d = 0.29) and impression manage-
ment (t (230) = 1.94; p = .05; d = 0.25) all with greater values
for male participants. Since the examination of multiple t-tests in-
creases the probability to make a Type I error, we additionally applied
a Bonferroni correction. After setting the signicance criterion at
p b .006, only the sex differences in age and self-deceptive enhance-
ment remained signicant. All other sex differences were statistically
irrelevant (see Table 1).
Additionally, zero-order correlations revealed that both mating-
related variables correlated equally strong in both sexes (rmen (88) =
.80, p b .01; rwomen (140) = .83, p b .01). With regard to the described
self-promotion traits, only self-deceptive enhancement and impression
management showed small to medium negative correlations (rmen
(88) = .33, p b .01; rwomen (140) = .28, p b .01). Since these corre-
lations as well as tolerance and variance ination factors (VIF) fell far
beneath problematic levels commonly mentioned in the literature,
multicollinearity issues were ruled out.
4.2. Multiple regression analyses
To examine the main effects of self-promotion traits on mating-
related outcomes, we constructed several hierarchical linear regres-
sion analyses jointly as well as separately for both sexes. Within
these regression analyses, the rst block contained a forced entry of
several covariates inuencing the measured criteria. Instead of merely
considering age, years of reproductive activity was controlled since
it provides a more precise lifetime-related measurement of sexual
behavior. With this in mind, current relationship status for the pre-
diction of mating orientation as well as duration of the longest under-
gone partner relationship for the prediction of total number of
intercourse partners were additionally considered as covariates. The
second block, then, included the three theoretical derived tendencies
towards self-monitoring, self-deceptive enhancement, and impression
management.
The conclusive regression model explained a total of 24% of the var-
iance in mating orientation (R2 = .24; F (5229) = 14.07; p b .01),
whereas both sexes were fairly alike in this respect (men: R2 = .32;
F (5,88) = 7.64; p b .01; women: R2 = .28; F (5140) = 10.52; p b .01).
As hypothesized, self-deceptive enhancement ( = .18; t (228) =
2.86; p b .01) and impression management ( = .28; t (228) = 4.42;
p b .01) signicantly predicted short-term mating orientation. These re-
sults strongly supported hypotheses 1a and 3a. Contrary to our expecta-
tion and against previous ndings, self-monitoring did not signicantly
predict mating orientation ( = .04; t (228) = 0.73; p = .47). Hypothe-
sis 2a, therefore, was rejected. However, respective strengths of predic-
tion for all three self-promotion traits met theoretical considerations.
Therefore, impression management characterized as a pure short-term
mating strategy showed the strongest effect, whereas self-deceptive
enhancement revealed a weaker predictive value. Nevertheless, self-
deception was still more predictive than self-monitoring.
Women t p d
Mean (SD)
23.13 (2.94) 4.33 b.01 0.58
6.77 (3.38) 2.02 .05 0.29
37.45 (38.60) 0.73 .47 0.10
4.46 (0.72) 0.39 .70 0.05
3.89 (0.70) 3.97 b.01 0.54
4.11 (0.81) 1.94 .05 0.25
2.37 (1.01) 0.45 .65 0.06
6.13 (5.90) 0.40 .69 0.06
14 K. Koban, P. Ohler / Personality and Individual Differences 92 (2016) 1115
Separately performed regression analyses revealed divergent pat-
terns for both sexes. While only a small difference was found between
standardized beta-coefcients of impression management (men: =
.28; t (87) = 2.81; p = .01; women: = .33; t (139) = 4.12; p b .01;
= .05), beta-coefcients of self-deceptive enhancement implied
a more substantial sex difference (men: = .30; t (87) = 2.95;
p = .01; women: = .19; t (139) = 2.35; p = .02; = .11).
These results, although descriptive in nature, complied with hypotheses
4a and 5a. While impression management proved to be a slightly weaker
predictor in men than women, self-deceptive enhancement constituted
a stronger short-term mating strategy in men. Interestingly, predictive
values of self-monitoring varied even more by showing a signicant
positive connection towards short-term mating orientation in women
( = .15; t (139) = 1.98; p = .05), but a non-signicant relationship
in men ( = .11; t (87) = 1.12; p = .27; = .26).
In terms of total number of intercourse partners, the introduced re-
gression model explained 32% of the variance (R2 = .33; F (5229) =
22.10; p b .01). Thereby, explanatory values differed substantially be-
tween separately performed regression models explaining 50% of the
variance among women (R2 = .51; F (5142) = 28.97; p b .01), but
only 24% among men (R2 = .24; F (5,86) = 5.147; p b .01). Conforming
with the formulated hypotheses, all three traits positively predicted
total number of intercourse partners signicantly (impression manage-
ment: = .18; t (228) = 3.06; p b .01; self-deceptive enhancement:
= .15; t (228) = 2.52; p = .01; self-monitoring: = .14; t (228) =
2.43; p = .02). These results provided evidence for hypotheses 1b, 2b,
and 3b. Therefore, all dispositional self-promotion strategies positively
predicted plurality of sexual intercourse partners. In addition, strengths
of prediction were in accordance with theoretical considerations, so
that impression management provided a stronger prediction than self-
deceptive enhancement, which in turn was more predictive than self-
monitoring. However, these ndings need to be interpreted cautiously
due to negligible differences between dispositions.
Except for the oppositional direction of self-monitoring, beta-
coefcients complied with the prediction differences in both imma-
nently deceitful self-promotion strategies. Accordingly, self-deception
turned out to be far more inuential regarding plurality of sexual inter-
course partners in men ( = .29; t (85) = 2.67; p = .01) than in
women, among whom no signicant effect was found ( = .10;
t (141) = 1.52; p = .13; = .19). This result, thus, provides strong
evidence in favor of hypothesis 4b as self-deceptive enhancement
represents a more efcient short-term mating strategy in men than
women. However, impression management showed a similar, but
weaker trend predicting total number of intercourse partners slightly
stronger in men than women (men: = .23; t (85) = 2.14; p = .04;
women: = .16; t (141) = 2.33; p = .02; = .07), which means
that hypothesis 5b is not supported. Contrary to our expectations, im-
pression management did not turn out to be a weaker predictor in
men compared to women.
Furthermore, while self-monitoring did not meet statistical signi-
cance within the male group ( = .11; t (85) = 1.11; p = .27), it was
the most predictive disposition among women ( = .18; t (141) =
2.81; p = .01; = .07).
5. Discussion
Based on an evolutionary psychological framework, the present
study examined three distinct dispositions, namely impression man-
agement, self-deceptive enhancement, and self-monitoring, directly re-
lated to strategic self-promotion, which was understood as an inated
display of an individual's tness. These self-promotion traits were
chosen as they imply conceptually varying consequences with regard
to authenticity issues. Deriving from its supplementary function on
exalting self-promotion, we hypothesized that all three strategies posi-
tively predict short-term mating orientation and total number of sexual
intercourse partners, but to different extents due to each assigned
characteristics. Following parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972),
it was additionally assumed that self-deceptive enhancement, which
unites a rather limited self-exaltation with low detection risks, would
be more inuential among men since women's superior detection
mechanisms resisting more apparent deceit. Conversely, men often
lack a proper deception detection in loose sexual contexts. Therefore,
we supposed that straightforward deception might be more efcient
regarding short-term mating in women than men.
Extending prior research on strategic self-promotion (e.g., Fisher
& Cox, 2011), the current examination pleads for an elaborated evolu-
tionary approach on self-centered personality characteristics context-
contingently supplementing exalting self-presentation. Accordingly,
our ndings showed that dispositional tendencies towards impression
management as well as self-deceptive enhancement positively pre-
dicted short-term mating orientation and total number of sexual in-
tercourse partners. These results, therefore, indicate that both traits
might provide a supportive intrapersonal environment for an at least
temporarily authentic enhancement of an individual's tness display.
Beyond this general result, deeper functional insights were revealed
by investigating sex differences. Our results indicated that self-deceptive
enhancement showed a stronger relationship to short-term mating in
men than women, while minor sex differences were found in predictive
value of impression management. A possible explanation for these
effects might lie in the evolutionary necessity of deception detection
mechanisms (Kruger et al., 2013), which are caused ultimately by differ-
ential reproduction costs in both sexes (Trivers, 1972). Women, there-
fore, might possess more rigorous detection mechanisms, which, in
turn, led to subtler deception techniques as male counterstrategies.
Against this background, our investigation provides much-anticipated
evidence that supports self-deception's evolutionary value as a subsidi-
ary mechanism for interpersonal deception (von Hippel & Trivers,
2011). Naturally, this interpretation should be treated cautiously due
to data limitations and, above all, a general lack of empirical work on
this topic.
More ambivalent results were found with regard to self-monitoring.
Extending the ndings from Lynn et al. (2014), self-directed attention
positively predicted short-term mating orientation and total number
of intercourse partners in women, but not men. Several interpretations
for this result are possible. On the one hand, self-monitoring regarding
one's own sexual needs can be linked to promiscuous sexual behavior
as it encourages taking concrete actions (Lynn et al., 2014). Sexual self-
awareness, then, simply might be a more efcient short-term mating
strategy for women than men considering men's higher responsiveness
to sexual offers (e.g. Clark & Hateld, 1989; Hald & Hgh-Olesen, 2010).
On the other hand, the inherent exibility resulting from self-monitoring
could also be benecial as long-term mating strategy ensuring a durable
romantic relationship. To clarify the ambivalent adaptive functionality of
self-monitoring for sociosexual problems further research should be
undertaken.
As in any empirical study, several methodological limitations need to
be considered. First, the sample mostly consisted of student participants
restricting a reasonable generalization of the results on so-called WEIRD
(western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) populations in
the main reproductive age. Based on the seminal research by Henrich,
Heine, and Norenzayan (2010), an examination of this subpopulation
is not well suited for universal claims on human nature. Therefore, the
revealed relations between individuals' self-promotion traits and their
mating orientation might result from partnership patterns dominating
current western culture. Cross-cultural research projects might provide
deeper insight into the matter of universal validity. Additionally, we
provide evidence from a single sample of young adults. Consequently,
our results cannot make a valid statement with respect to the adult pop-
ulation as a whole. Future examinations should seek to achieve a larger
and more comprehensive sample to explore possible age-related effects.
Additionally, the present study was correlational by design. Regard-
less of the theory-driven ultimate reasoning, gathered data did not
 K. Koban, P. Ohler / Personality and Individual Differences 92 (2016) 1115
permit any inferences on proximate causes. The self-report measures
were applied exclusively being particularly vulnerable to social desirabil-
ity biases. In this respect, assessing self-deceptive enhancement and im-
pression management via self-report appeared to be paradoxical since
these characteristics are misleading by nature, especially since mea-
sures were assessed via online survey, so we could not ensure whether
participants were taken the questions seriously. This lack of control
over participants' answering might cause some distortion in the data.
Future research, therefore, should add behavioral, bio-physiological, or
endocrinal parameters as supplementary operationalization as well as
validation checks of participants' attentiveness.
6. Conclusions
Enhancing perceived mating value via strategic self-promotion is not
only visible in people's concrete behaviors and actions, but also appears
to be deeply entrenched in personality. Adopting an evolutionary psy-
chological perspective, the current examination extents the literature
on the adaptive function of self-promotion by acknowledging the inu-
ence of complementary dispositional factors. To this end, our study pro-
vides an empirical approach examining self-referential dispositions as
offensive psychological mechanisms in order to deceive others more
efciently in this case prospective mating partners. While doing so,
the revealed differences in prediction value between sexes largely
correspond with the key assumption of parental investment theory
providing a solid theoretical foundation for future research on its evolu-
tionary basis.
Apart from this mating context, a favorable self-presentation is gen-
erally considered a valuable soft skill in present daily life, especially with
respect to individuals' professional career. Better insight into the con-
nections between self-promotion traits and success in various life do-
mains might have the potential to explain everyday situations like an
individual's popularity within a group over time as well as large-scale
phenomena such as the sudden rise and fall of a media personality. In
this regard, too, an evolutionary psychological framework might con-
stitute a relevant complementary approach that might be worth con-
sidering alongside with a constructivist reasoning.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the participants of the 15th Annual Confer-
ence of the MVE list (human behavior in evolutionary perspective) for
their feedback on this study as well as the three anonymous reviewers
for several helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Last-
ly, we thank Benjamin P. Lange and Laura Winkler for their support
regarding the acquisition of participants. This work was supported by
the DFG, (GRK1780/1).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.056.
References
Brewer, G., & Abell, L. (2015). Machiavellianism and sexual behavior: Motivations, decep-
tion and indelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 186191. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.028.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1017/S0140525X00023992.
Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and
individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 359366. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01138.x.
15
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective
on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.100.2.204.
Clark, R., & Hateld, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.
Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2(1), 3955. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J056v02n01_04.
Epley, N., & Whitchurch, E. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Enhancement in self-
recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 11591170. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318601.
Filipp, S. -H., & Freudenberg, E. (1989). Der Fragebogen zur Erfassung dispositionaler
Selbstaufmerksamkeit (SAM-Fragebogen) [[A questionnaire to assess dispositional self-
directed attention (SAM questionnaire)]]. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2011). Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for
mates. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 2038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.
2010.01307.x.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A
10 year review: Dark triad of personality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
7(3), 199216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018.
Gilbert, D. T. (2006). Stumbling on happiness (1st ed.). New York: A.A. Knopf.
Hald, G. M., & Hgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of
the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 453458. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.004.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 33(23), 6183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
Hoyer, J., & Kunst, H. (2001). Selbstaufmerksamkeit und Selbst-Kenntnis im SAM-
Fragebogen [Self-directed attention and self-knowledge in the SAM questionnaire].
Zeitschrift fr Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 22(2), 111117. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1024//0170-1789.22.2.111.
Johnson, A. K., Barnacz, A., Yokkaichi, T., Rubio, J., Racioppi, C., Shackelford, T. K., ... Keenan,
J. P. (2005). Me, myself, and lie: The role of self-awareness in deception. Personality
and Individual Differences, 38(8), 18471853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.
11.013.
Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life: The dark triad and life his-
tory theory. Human Nature, 21(4), 428442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-
9102-4.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating
a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23(1), 518.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.698.
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., Baughman, H. M., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). What a tangled web we
weave: The dark triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70,
117119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.038.
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Edelstein, R. S., Chopik, W. J., Fitzgerald, C. J., & Stout, S. L. (2013).
Was that cheating? Perceptions vary by sex, attachment anxiety, and behavior.
Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to
Psychology and Behavior, 11(1), 159171.
Lynn, C. D., Pipitone, R. N., & Keenan, J. P. (2014). To thine own self be false: Self-deceptive
enhancement and sexual awareness inuences on mating success. Evolutionary
Behavioral Sciences, 8(2), 109122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0097255.
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self deception and impression management in self-reports:
The balanced inventory of desirable responding.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differ-
entiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 11131135. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.
Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics of personality.
European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 549587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.629.
Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Shields, S. A. (1995). On the advantages of modesty: The
benets of a balanced self-presentation. Communication Research, 22(5), 575591.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365095022005003.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation:
Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 11851204. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.70.6.1185.
Schmitt, D. P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2003). Nifty ways to leave your lover: The tactics people
use to entice and disguise the process of human mate poaching. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 10181035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203253471.
Stber, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring
of the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Journal of Personality Assessment,
78(2), 370389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_10.
Surbey, M. K. (2011). Adaptive signicance of low levels of self-deception and coopera-
tion in depression. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(1), 2940. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.08.009.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. G. Campbell (Ed.),
Sexual selection and the descent of man, 18711971 (pp. 136179). London: Heinemann
Educational.
Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-
deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 116. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1017/S0140525X10001354.
Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, E. W. (2004). Self-knowledge: Its limits, value, and potential for im-
provement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 493518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.55.090902.141954.