Sexual imprinting of offspring on their parents and siblings

Figures & data

Table 1. Percentages of the 4,063 participants who experienced sexual imprinting

“I find that I am attracted to people with physical characteristics resembling those of:” (P34)	Women		Men
Choices	n^a	%^b	n^a	%^b
1. “My mother or mother figure”	22	0.8	167	11.5
2. “My father or father figure”	404	15.5	27	1.9
3. “My sister or stepsister, etc.”	10	0.4	31	2.1
4. “My brother or stepbrother, etc.”	65	2.5	7	0.5
5. “This question is not applicable since I never became aware of looking for physical characteristics resembling any family member”	2,110	80.8	1,220	84.0
Column totals	2,611	100	1,452	100

Notes: Χ²(4, 4063) = 441.68, p < .001, indicating a highly significant difference in the endorsement distribution between women and men.

^a Count of those who selected the choice.

^b Percentage of those who selected the choice.

Table 2. Logistic regression analyses

Predictor #, variables (in order of decreasing predictive power) and models
		B	Std. error	p	e^B
	Model #1a, Nagelkerke r^2 = .021 N = 2,611; n1 = 404	Analysis for predicting sexual imprinting on father in women
1	Paternal Affection (coded 1–3)	0.360	0.088	<.001	1.433
2	Modeling (coded 1–3)	0.1733	0.085	.043	1.189
	Constant	−2.957	0.248	<.001
	Model #1b, Nagelkerke r^2 = .009 N = 2,611; n1 = 404	Analysis for predicting sexual imprinting on father in women
1	“My parents never married (excludes common law marriages) before I reached 18 and did not live together”	−0.800	0.353	.024	0.449
2	“My parent’ relationship was very good with lots of love, support, and physical affection and few times when there was fighting, anger, criticism or distance”	0.246	0.111	.026	1.279
	Constant	−1.767	0.072	<.001
	Model #2, Nagelkerke r^2 = .086 N = 2,611; n1 = 65	Analysis for predicting sexual imprinting on brother in women
1	At least one older brother (coded 0/1)	1.835	0.297	<.001	6.267
	Constant	−4.708	0.259	<.001
	Model #3, Nagelkerke r^2 = .031 N = 2,611; n1 = 22	Analysis for predicting sexual imprinting on mother in women
1	“My parents divorced or separated, and there was a remarriage or a new partner in my home before I reached 18”	0.413	0.144	.004	1.512
	Constant	−5.158	0.290	<.001
	Model #4a, Nagelkerke r^2 = .024 N = 2,611; n1 = 10	Analyses for predicting sexual imprinting on sister in women
	CSA-AF	2.522	1.075	.019	12.454
	Constant	−5.658	0.334	<.001
	Model #4b, Nagelkerke r^2 = .017 N = 2611; n1 = 10
1	My parents’ relationship included a lot of physical fighting and/or brutality	2.014	1.067	.059	7.494
	Constant	−5.652	0.334	<.001
	Model #5, Nagelkerke r^2 = .030 N = 1,452; n1 = 167	Analysis for predicting sexual imprinting on mother in men
1	Maternal attitude about sex (coded 1–3)	0.719	0.220	.001	2.052
2	Older brother (coded 0/1)	−0.411	0.180	.023	0.663
3	CSA-AF	0.515	0.239	.031	1.673
	Constant	−1.964	0.105	<.001
	Model #6 Nagelkerke r^2 = .020 N = 1,452; n1 = 31	Analysis for predicting sexual imprinting on sister in men
1	Parental modeling of affection (coded 1–3)	0.670	0.300	.026	1.953
	Constant	−5.399	0.766	<.001
	Model #7, Nagelkerke r^2 = .055 N = 1,452; n1 = 27	Analysis for predicting sexual imprinting on father in men
1	SBI coded 0/1	1.646	0.654	.012	5.188
2	CSA-AM	1.344	0.661	.042	3.835
3	“There was often an obvious disagreement between my parents with my mother taking my part against my father”	0.924	.413	.025	2.520
	Constant	−4.379	0.258	<.001

Table 3. Sexual orientation in female participants tabulated by imprinted family member

Choices	n	MSOS				FSOS
		M ± SE	Mdn	p^1	η^2	M ± SE	Mdn	p^1	η^2
1. “My mother or mother figure”	22	5.7 ± 2.8	6	ns	.001	3.6 ± 3.9	1.5	.001	.005
2. “My father or father figure”	404	7.6 ± 2.0	8	<.001	.016	1.0 ± 1.7	0	ns	.002
3. “My sister or stepsister, etc.”	10	2.3 ± 2.3	1.5	<.001	.007	8.2 ± 2.3	8	<.001	.014
4. “My brother or stepbrother, etc.”	65	7.6 ± 2.0	8	.003	.004	0.7 ± 1.5	0	ns	<.001
5. “This question is not applicable …” (Controls)	2,110	6.7 ± 2.4	7	Control	^*	1.1 ± 2.1	0	Control	^*

Notes: p and η² (the partial eta squared, a measure of effect size) were calculated on the rank transformed data to correct for heterogeneity of data variance in the untransformed data. p¹ was calculated from the rank t-test and adjusted for multiple comparisons to a single control using Dunnett’s tables.

^* η² was not calculated for this parameter which was set to zero because it was redundant.

Table 4. Sexual orientation in male participants tabulated by imprinted family member

Choices	n	MSOS				FSOS
		M ± SE	Mdn	p^1	η^2	M ± SE	Mdn	p^1	η^2
1. “My mother or mother figure”	167	0.3 ± 0.9	0	ns	<.001	9.4 ± 1.5	10	<.001	.010
2. “My father or father figure”	27	7.8 ± 4.5	10	<.001	.058	3.0 ± 3.7	2	<.001	.024
3. “My sister or stepsister, etc.”	31	0.5 ± 1.2	0	ns	<.001	9.2 ± 2.0	10	ns	.002
4. “My brother or stepbrother, etc.”	7	6.7 ± 4.8	8	<.001	.012	3.7 ± 4.2	1	.006	.005
5. “This question is not applicable …” (Controls)	1,220	0.9 ± 2.6	0	Control	^*	8.4 ± 2.8	9	Control	^*

Notes: p and η² (the partial eta squared, a measure of effect size) were calculated on the rank transformed data to correct for heterogeneity of data variance in the untransformed data. p¹ was calculated from the rank t-test and adjusted for multiple comparisons to a single control using Dunnett’s tables.

^* η² was not calculated for this parameter which was set to zero because it was redundant.