The Mate Value Scale
Introduction
Whom do we choose to mate with and why? Human mating has been a topic of interest to philosophers and scientists alike for many years. Numerous studies have investigated men’s and women’s sexual strategies (e.g., Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, & Angleitner, 2005), preferences for short-term mates (e.g., Schmitt, 2005), and preferences for long-term mates (e.g., Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001). Most of the research has illustrated differences between men and women (e.g., mate selection criteria (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002), mate retention tactics (Buss & Shackelford, 1997), reactions to infidelity (Edlund & Sagarin, 2009)), whereas a smaller number of studies have focused primarily on the similarities between the genders (e.g., causes of marital dissolution; Betzig, 1989).
A major area of research that incorporates all of these aspects of mating psychology is the theory of assortative mating. Assortative mating is based on the idea of mate worth or value (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Specifically, it refers to the proclivity for individuals to be in a long-term relationship with someone who is of approximately equivalent mate value. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in numerous animal species (e.g., budgerigars, Moravec, Streidter, & Burley, 2006; lake perch, Behrmann-Godel, Gerlach, & Eckmann, 2006), as well as in humans (e.g., Luo and Klohnen, 2005, Watson et al., 2004).
Mate value has emerged as an important moderator in a number of research areas. For instance, mate value has been shown to moderate the relationship between fertility status in women and changes in their mate preferences (Millar, 2013). Other research has suggested that men’s and women’s demands of a mate differ based on mate value (Edlund & Sagarin, 2010). Mate value may also moderate the types of relationship maintenance behaviors men engage in (Starratt & Shackelford, 2012). Even abortion decisions may be partially moderated by mate value (Anglin, Amaral, & Edlund, 2010).
Mate value has been assessed in research using a number of different methods that can be roughly divided into two approaches. The first approach is characterized by the assessment of one or more factors that researchers assume are components of mate value such as physical attractiveness (Griffiths & Kunz 1973), facial attractiveness (Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2006), masculine traits (such as voice pitch: Collins, 2000), and feminine traits (waist–hip ratio: Singh, Dixson, Jessop, Morgan, & Dixson, 2010). Other measures (such as the Mate Value Inventory (MVI) Kirsner, Figueredo, & Jacobs, 2003) ask participants to indicate their own values on components of mate value (which are then summed to derive a total mate value score). Still other researchers have looked at the number of children produced across a lifespan as the primary measure of mate value (Pflüger, Oberzaucher, Katina, Holzleitner, & Grammer, 2012), or self-percieved perceptions of mating success (Landolt, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1995). However, an accurate assessment of mate value using these methods depends on researchers accurately capturing all of the components of mate value and combining them in potentially highly complex ways (e.g., certain characteristics being taken into account only when minimum levels of other characteristics have been reached; very high levels of one characteristic compensating for inadequate levels of another; etc.). In addition, the assessment of mate value using some of these techniques can be costly in terms of time and effort (e.g., computer-based measurement of facial symmetry, inter-rater assessment of physical attractiveness). Furthermore, although there are a number of commonly agreed upon traits valued in a mate (such as: attractiveness: Bailey, Durante, & Geary, 2011; status: Buss, 1989; friendliness, health, family orientation: Kenrick, Sadall, Groth, & Trost, 1990), other traits are still being identified (Kille, Forest, & Wood, 2013). Finally, some research has suggested that culture and environmental factors may influence mate value (Goodwin et al., 2012). Perhaps as a result of our incomplete knowledge of all the components of mate value, to date, there have been no fully validated component measures of mate value that encompass all aspects of the construct (Edlund, 2008).
The second approach to measuring mate value assesses mate value more holistically1. This approach is based on the idea that people have an accurate sense of their own mate value and the mate value of others, even if they cannot articulate all the factors that comprise mate value and the complex algorithms that combine these factors into mate value (Brase & Guy, 2004). So, instead of measuring individual factors and, if more than one is measured, combining them (typically using an unweighted average), the holistic approach allows this complex process to occur inside the observer and attempts to measure the output of the process. Currently, there is only one self-report measure of self-perceived mate value that takes this approach (Mate Value Single Item Scale (MVSIS) Brase & Guy, 2004); however, as a single item measure it may not possess desired levels of reliability.
There are advantage and disadvantages to both approaches. If a particular component of mate value (such as physical attractiveness) is particularly relevant to a research question, adopting a component approach makes sense. However, given that the majority of the research has conceptualized mate value as an all-encompassing construct, the measurement and accurate combination of all components of mate value is critical if the component approach is adopted—a difficult task as the components and combining algorithms are still being investigated. The purpose of this paper is to detail the creation, validation, and application of a short (4-item) self-report measure of mate value (hereafter termed Mate Value Scale (MVS)) that takes a holistic approach to assessing mate value.
Section snippets
Study One
Although much work remains to fully understand all of the impacts of mate value on individuals in the mating pool, it is clear that mate value matters. Furthermore, although researchers have not yet identified all the components of mate value or the ways these components are combined, research has demonstrated that people actively seek mates that are close to their own mate value (Luo and Klohnen, 2005, Watson et al., 2004). As such, we sought to develop a mate value measure that would allow
Study Two
As mentioned earlier, there are many components of mate value (such as attractiveness, likeability, friendliness) that are often used as a proxy for mate value in the literature and have been validated as capturing a component of mate value. This study was designed to subject the MVS to a rigorous psychometric evaluation. Participants completed a battery of measures designed to assess internal consistency and the factor structure of the MVS, test–retest reliability, and convergent and
Study Three
According to the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992), ancestral women’s challenge of ensuring paternal investment exerted selective pressures that increased women’s jealousy in response to emotional infidelity, whereas ancestral men’s challenge of paternal uncertainty exerted selective pressures that increased men’s jealousy in response to sexual infidelity. Numerous studies have demonstrated that this occurs cross-culturally (Buunk, Solano,
General discussion
Across three studies, we demonstrated that the Mate Value Scale represents an efficient, reliable, and valid manner of collecting self-report data on mate value. We demonstrated that the Mate Value Scale has excellent internal consistency for a short measure along with excellent test–retest reliability. We demonstrated across three studies that the scale represents a single factor of mate value (as assessed through PCA and CFA). Beyond this, we demonstrated that the scale has convergent
References (51)
- et al.
Keep the mate or keep the child: Abortion decisions under different conditions
Personality and Individual Differences
(2010) - et al.
Men’s perception of women’s attractiveness is calibrated to relative mate value and dominance of the women’s partner
Evolution And Human Behavior
(2011) - et al.
The demographics of mate value and self-esteem
Personality and Individual Differences
(2004) Men’s voices and women’s choices
Animal Behavior
(2000)- et al.
Mate value and mate preferences: An investigation into decisions made with and without constraints
Personality and Individual Differences
(2010) - et al.
Simple measures and complex structures: Is it worth employing a more complex model of personality in Big Five inventories?
Journal of Research in Personality
(2013) - et al.
Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among beck depression inventory scores and perceived mate values
Journal of Affective Disorders
(2003) - et al.
Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1995) - et al.
Assortative mating for perceived facial personality traits
Personality and Individual Differences
(2006) - et al.
Cues to fertility: Perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2012)
Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination
Evolution and Human Behavior
Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness
Evolution and Human Behavior
He said, she said: Men’s reports of mate value and mate retention behaviors in intimate relationships
Personality and Individual Differences
Sex differences in jealousy in response to infidelity: Evaluation of demographic moderators in a national random sample
Personality and Individual Differences
Kin and population recognition in sympatric Lake Constance perch (Perca fluviatilis L): Can assortative shoaling drive population divergence?
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Sexual boundaries and jealousy management in swingers
Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study
Current Anthropology
Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighting cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology
Psychological Science
Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment
Evolutionary Psychology
A half century of American mate preferences
Journal of Marriage and the Family
Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels
Personal Relationships
Gender differences in the jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics: A study in Spain and Argentina
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Cited by (100)
-
Tell me what you buy, and I will tell you how you are: Luxurious cars increase perceptions of status, social dominance, and attractiveness
2024, Personality and Individual Differences -
Off with her hair: Intrasexually competitive women advise other women to cut off more hair
2024, Personality and Individual Differences -
It's not just a piece of paper: University education signals status and personality
2023, Personality and Individual Differences -
Risk diffusing operators and who uses them to help manage negative consequences of sexual decision making
2023, Personality and Individual Differences -
Dark personality traits and sociosexual dynamics in Australian men and women: Two direct replications of Borráz-León & Rantala (2021)
2022, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (extremely undesirable) to 7 (extremely desirable). The scale has demonstrated adequate internal consistency and convergent validity as well as good test-retest reliability (Edlund & Sagarin, 2014). This scale demonstrated good internal consistency in the current study for Sample 1 (α = 0.83) and Sample 2 (α = 0.83).
-
Meeting minimum mate preference thresholds can be more important than the overall score
2022, Personality and Individual Differences