Table 1. Mean correlation coefficients between TFD and attractiveness.
| Same-sex scenes | Mixed-sex scenes | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total | Female | Male | Total |
| Total | .23 | .08 | .16 | .19 | .13 | .16 | .21 | .11 | .16 |
| Men | .32 | .05 | .19 | .23 | .09 | .16 | .27 | .07 | .17 |
| Committed | .33 | .09 | .21 | .22 | .08 | .15 | .27 | .08 | .18 |
| Restricted | .30 | .14 | .22 | .19 | .01 | .10 | .24 | .08 | .16 |
| Unrestricted | .35 | .03 | .19 | .26 | .15 | .20 | .31 | .09 | .20 |
| Single | .32 | .02 | .17 | .23 | .10 | .17 | .27 | .06 | .17 |
| Restricted | .25 | .00 | .12 | .19 | .17 | .18 | .22 | .09 | .15 |
| Unrestricted | .38 | .04 | .21 | .27 | .03 | .15 | .32 | .04 | .18 |
| Women | .14 | .11 | .13 | .15 | .17 | .16 | .15 | .14 | .14 |
| Committed | .13 | .11 | .12 | .18 | .14 | .16 | .16 | .13 | .14 |
| Restricted | .13 | .12 | .12 | .11 | .06 | .08 | .12 | .09 | .10 |
| Unrestricted | .13 | .11 | .12 | .27 | .26 | .26 | .20 | .18 | .19 |
| Single | .16 | .11 | .13 | .11 | .21 | .16 | .13 | .16 | .14 |
| Restricted | .07 | .07 | .07 | .08 | .24 | .16 | .08 | .16 | .12 |
| Unrestricted | .23 | .13 | .18 | .13 | .18 | .15 | .18 | .16 | .17 |
Note. Sociosexual orientation was calculated by a median split, separately for women (Mdn = 3.78) and men (Mdn = 5.22). Please note that a median split is not recommended by Penke and Asendorpf [46] to avoid categorizing people into “restricted” and “unrestricted”. However, that was the only way to illustrate the results in this table. For the actual analyses, we used the individual values and made no median split.