Full text loading...
Review Article
Free
Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations
- David M. Buss1, and David P. Schmitt2
- Vol. 70:77-110 (Volume publication date January 2019) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408
- First published as a Review in Advance on September 19, 2018
-
Copyright © 2019 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
Abstract
Evolved mate preferences comprise a central causal process in Darwin's theory of sexual selection. Their powerful influences have been documented in all sexually reproducing species, including in sexual strategies in humans. This article reviews the science of human mate preferences and their myriad behavioral manifestations. We discuss sex differences and sex similarities in human sexual psychology, which vary according to short-term and long-term mating contexts. We review context-specific shifts in mating strategy depending on individual, social, and ecological qualities such as mate value, life history strategy, sex ratio, gender economic inequality, and cultural norms. We review the empirical evidence for the impact of mate preferences on actual mating decisions. Mate preferences also dramatically influence tactics of mate attraction, tactics of mate retention, patterns of deception, causes of sexual regret, attraction to cues to sexual exploitability, attraction to cues to fertility, attraction to cues to resources and protection, derogation of competitors, causes of breakups, and patterns of remarriage. We conclude by articulating unresolved issues and offer a future agenda for the science of human mating, including how humans invent novel cultural technologies to better implement ancient sexual strategies and how cultural evolution may be dramatically influencing our evolved mating psychology.
Article metrics loading...
Literature Cited
- Alexander RD, Noonan KM 1979. Concealment of ovulation, parental care, and human social evolution. Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behaviour: An Anthropological Perspective NA Chagnon, W Irons 436–53 North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press
- Anderson K 2006. How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Curr. Anthropol. 47:3513–20
- Andersson MB 1994. Sexual Selection Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
- Andrews TM, Lukaszewski AW, Simmons ZL, Bleske-Rechek A 2017. Cue-based estimates of reproductive value explain women's body attractiveness. Evol. Hum. Behav. 38:4461–67
- Ardener E, Ardener S, Warmington WA, Ruel MJ 1960. Plantation and Village in the Cameroons: Some Economic and Social Studies Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
- Arnqvist G, Rowe L 2013. Sexual Conflict Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
- Arslan RC, Schilling KM, Gerlach TM, Penke L 2017. Using 26 thousand diary entries to show ovulatory changes in sexual desire and behaviour. PsyArXiv. http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JP2YM
- Asendorpf JB, Penke L, Back MD 2011. From dating to mating and relating: predictors of initial and long‐term outcomes of speed‐dating in a community sample. Eur. J. Personal. 25:116–30
- Barrett HC, Frederick DA, Haselton MG, Kurzban R 2006. Can manipulations of cognitive load be used to test evolutionary hypotheses. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91:3513–18
- Baumeister RF, Vohs KD 2012. Sexual economics, culture, men, and modern sexual trends. Society 49:6520–24
- Bendixen M, Asao K, Wyckoff J, Buss DM, Kennair LEO 2017. Sexual regret in U.S. and Norway: effects of culture and individual differences in religiosity and mating strategy. Personal. Individ. Differ. 116:246–51
- Berscheid E, Walster E 1974. Physical attractiveness. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol 7:157–215
- Betzig L 1989. Causes of conjugal dissolution: a cross-cultural study. Curr. Anthropol. 30:5654–76
- Betzig L 1992. Roman polygyny. Ethol. Sociobiol. 13:5–6309–49
- Bokek-Cohen Y, Peres Y, Kanazawa S 2008. Rational choice and evolutionary psychology as explanations for mate selectivity. J. Soc. Evol. Cult. Psychol 2242–55
- Borgerhoff Mulder M 1988. Kipsigis bridewealth payments. Human Reproductive Behaviour: A Darwinian Perspective L Betzig, M Borgerhoff Mulder, P Turke 65–82 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
- Borgerhoff Mulder MB 1990. Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy men: evidence for female choice in mammals?. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27:4255–64
- Brewer G, Archer J 2007. What do people infer from facial attractiveness. J. Evol. Psychol. 5:139–49
- Brewer G, Riley C 2009. Height, relationship satisfaction, jealousy, and mate retention. Evol. Psychol. 7:3447–89
- Broude GJ, Greene SJ 1976. Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology 15:409–29
- Burriss RP, Welling LL, Puts DA 2011. Mate-preference drives mate-choice: Men's self-rated masculinity predicts their female partner's preference for masculinity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 51:81023–27
- Buss DM 1987. Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: an evolutionary perspective. Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications C Crawford, M Smith, D Krebs 335–52 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
- Buss DM 1988.a The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54:4616–28
- Buss DM 1988.b Love acts: the evolutionary biology of love. The Psychology of Love R Sternberg, M Barnes 100–18 New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
- Buss DM 1989.a Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 56:5735–47
- Buss DM 1989.b Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12:11–14
- Buss DM 1991. Mate selection for good parenting skills. Behav. Brain Sci. 14:3520–21
- Buss DM 1995. Psychological sex differences: origins through sexual selection. Am. Psychol. 50:164–68
- Buss DM 2015. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind Abingdon, UK: Routledge
- Buss DM 2016. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating New York: Basic Books
- Buss DM 2018. The evolution of love in humans. The New Psychology of Love R Sternberg Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
- Buss DM, Abbott M, Angleitner A, Asherian A, Biaggio A et al. 1990. International preferences in selecting mates: a study of 37 cultures. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 21:5–47
- Buss DM, Barnes M 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50:3559–70
- Buss DM, Goetz C, Duntley JD, Asao K, Conroy-Beam D 2017. The mate switching hypothesis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 104:143–49
- Buss DM, Haselton M 2005. The evolution of jealousy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9:11506–7
- Buss DM, Larsen RJ, Westen D, Semmelroth J 1992. Sex differences in jealousy: evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychol. Sci. 3:4251–56
- Buss DM, Schmitt DP 1993. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100:2204–32
- Buss DM, Schmitt DP 2011. Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles 64:9–10768–87
- Buss DM, Shackelford TK 1997. From vigilance to violence: mate retention tactics in married couples. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:2346–61
- Buss DM, Shackelford TK 2008. Attractive women want it all: good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evol. Psychol. 6:1134–46
- Buss DM, Shackelford TK, Kirkpatrick LA, Larsen RJ 2001. A half century of mate preferences: the cultural evolution of values. J. Marriage Fam. 63:491–503
- Cattell RB, Nesselroade JR 1967. Likeness and completeness theories examined by sixteen personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 7:351–61
- Chang L, Wang Y, Shackelford TK, Buss DM 2011. Chinese mate preferences: cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personal. Individ. Differ. 50:5678–83
- Clark AP 2006. Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women. Personal. Individ. Differ. 41:71321–27
- Clark MS, Reis HT 1988. Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 39:609–72
- Clark RD, Hatfield E 1989. Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 2:139–55
- Confer JC, Easton JA, Fleischman DS, Goetz CD, Lewis DM et al. 2010. Evolutionary psychology: controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. Am. Psychol. 65:2110–26
- Conroy-Beam D, Buss DM 2018. Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influence on multiple mating behaviors. Evol. Behav. Sci. In press
- Courtiol A, Raymond M, Godelle B, Ferdy JB 2010. Mate choice and human stature: homogamy as a unified framework for understanding mating preferences. Evolution 64:82189–203
- Cronk L, Dunham B 2007. Amounts spent on engagement rings reflect aspects of male and female mate quality. Hum. Nat. 18:4329–33
- Darwin C 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection London: Murray
- Darwin C 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex London: Murray
- DeSteno D, Bartlett MY, Braverman J, Salovey P 2002. Sex differences in jealousy: evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:51103–16
- Dunbar RI 1993. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behav. Brain Sci. 16:4681–94
- Eagly AH, Wood W 1999. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am. Psychol. 54:6408–23
- Eagly AH, Wood W, Johanssen-Schmidt MC 2004. Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: implications for the partner preferences of women and men. The Psychology of Gender, AH Eagly, AE Beal, RJ Sternberg269–95 New York: Guilford Press, 2nd ed..
- Eastwick PW, Luchies LB, Finkel EJ, Hunt LL 2014. The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: a review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140:3623–65
- Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ 2017. Sex differences in jealousy: a 25-year retrospective. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 55:259–302
- Fales MR, Frederick DA, Garcia JR, Gildersleeve KA, Haselton MG, Fisher HE 2016. Mating markets and bargaining hands: mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national US studies. Personal. Individ. Differ. 88:78–87
- Fieder M, Huber S 2007. Parental age difference and offspring count in humans. Biol. Lett. 3:6689–91
- Frank RH 1988. Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions New York: Norton
- Frayser S 1985. Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective New Haven, CT: HRAF Press
- Freud S, Strachey JE 1964. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud London: Hogarth Press
- Gallup AC, White DD, Gallup GG 2007. Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evol. Hum. Behav. 28:6423–29
- Galperin A, Haselton MG, Frederick DA, Poore J, von Hippel W et al. 2013. Sexual regret: evidence for evolved sex differences. Arch. Sex. Behav. 42:71145–61
- Gangestad SW, Buss DM 1993. Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Evol. Hum. Behav. 14:289–96
- Gangestad SW, Haselton MG, Buss DM 2006. Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychol. Inq. 17:275–95
- Gangestad SW, Thornhill R 2008. Human oestrus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275:1638991–1000
- Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Garver-Apgar CE 2005. Women's sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272:15762023–27
- Garza R, Heredia RR, Cieslicka AB 2016. Male and female perception of physical attractiveness: an eye movement study. Evol. Psychol. 14:11474704916631614
- Genovese JE 2008. Physique correlates with reproductive success in an archival sample of delinquent youth. Evol. Psychol. 6:3369–85
- Gil-Burmann C, Peláez F, Sánchez S 2002. Mate choice differences according to sex and age. Hum. Nat. 13:4493–508
- Gildersleeve K, Haselton MG, Fales MR 2014. Do women's mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 140:51205–59
- Glass SP, Wright TL 1992. Justifications for extramarital relationships: the association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. J. Sex Res. 29:3361–87
- Goetz CD, Easton JA, Lewis DM, Buss DM 2012. Sexual exploitability: observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33:4417–26
- Gonzaga GC, Haselton MG, Smurda J, sian Davies M, Poore JC 2008. Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29:2119–26
- Grammer K 1992. Variations on a theme: age dependent mate selection in humans. Behav. Brain Sci. 15:1100–2
- Gray PB 2013. Evolution and human sexuality. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 152:S5794–118
- Gray PB, Garcia JR, Gesselman AN 2018. Age-related patterns in sexual behaviors and attitudes among single US adults: an evolutionary approach. Evol. Behav. Sci. In press
- Greiling H, Buss DM 2000. Women's sexual strategies: the hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personal. Individ. Differ. 28:5929–63
- Guttentag M, Secord PF 1983. Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
- Hald GM, Høgh-Olesen H 2010. Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:6453–58
- Haselton MG, Buss DM, Oubaid V, Angleitner A 2005. Sex, lies, and strategic interference: the psychology of deception between the sexes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31:13–23
- Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ 2012. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367:1589657–69
- Hewlett BS 1991. Demography and childcare in preindustrial societies. J. Anthropol. Res. 47:11–37
- Hill K, Hurtado AM 2017. Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People Abingdon, UK: Routledge
- Hitsch GJ, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D 2010. What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quant. Mark. Econ. 8:4393–427
- Hrdy SB 1979. Infanticide among animals: a review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethol. Sociobiol. 1:113–40
- Hughes SM, Gallup GG 2003. Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evol. Hum. Behav. 24:3173–78
- Jankowiak W 1997. Romantic Passion: A Universal Experience? New York: Columbia Univ. Press
- Jonason PK, Buss DM 2012. Avoiding entangling commitments: tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personal. Individ. Differ. 52:5606–10
- Jonason PK, Luevano VX, Adams HM 2012. How the Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Personal. Individ. Differ. 53:3180–84
- Jones BC, Hahn AC, Fisher CI, Wang H, Kandrik M et al. 2018. No compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity track changes in women's hormonal status. Psychol. Sci 29:996–1005
- Jünger J, Kordsmeyer TL, Gerlach TM, Penke L 2018. Fertile women evaluate male bodies as more attractive, regardless of masculinity. Evol. Hum. Behav. 39:412–23
- Karremans JC, Frankenhuis WE, Arons S 2010. Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:3182–86
- Kennair LEO, Bendixen M, Buss DM 2016. Sexual regret: tests of competing explanations of sex differences. Evol. Psychol. 14:41474704916682903
- Kennair LEO, Wyckoff J, Asao K, Buss DM, Bendixen M 2018. Why do women regret casual sex more than men do?. Personal. Individ. Differ. 127:61–67
- Kenrick DT, Groth GE, Trost MR, Sadalla EK 1993. Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64:951–69
- Kenrick DT, Keefe RC 1992. Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behav. Brain Sci. 15:175–91
- Kenrick DT, Sadalla EK, Groth G, Trost MR 1990. Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. J. Personal. 58:197–116
- Khallad Y 2005. Mate selection in Jordan: effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 22:2155–68
- Landolt MA, Lalumière ML, Quinsey VL 1995. Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: an evolutionary approach. Ethol. Sociobiol. 16:13–23
- Lewis DM, Easton JA, Goetz CD, Buss DM 2012. Exploitative male mating strategies: personality, mating orientation, and relationship status. Personal. Individ. Differ. 52:2139–43
- Li NP 2007. Mate preference necessities in long- and short-term mating: People prioritize in themselves what their mates prioritize in them. Acta Psychol. Sin. 39:3528–35
- Li NP, Meltzer AL 2015. The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evol. Behav. Sci. 9:289–106
- Lippa RA 2009. Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Arch. Sex. Behav. 38:5631–51
- Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI 2002. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:14961095–100
- Low BS 1991. Reproductive life in nineteenth century Sweden: an evolutionary perspective on demographic phenomena. Evol. Hum. Behav. 12:6411–48
- Lukaszewski AW, Roney JR 2010. Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:129–38
- Marlowe FM 2003. The mating system of foragers in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cult. Res. 37:282–306
- Marlowe FW 2004. Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Hum. Nat. 15:4365–76
- Mogilski JK, Memering SL, Welling LL, Shackelford TK 2017. Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Arch. Sex. Behav. 46:2407–17
- Mikach SM, Bailey JM 1999. What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners?. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20:3141–50
- Miller G 2000. Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. Novartis Found. Symp. 233:260–70
- Minervini BP, McAndrew FT 2006. The mating strategies and mate preferences of mail order brides. Cross-Cult. Res. 40:2111–29
- Moss JH, Maner JK 2016. Biased sex ratios influence fundamental aspects of human mating. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42:172–80
- Muggleton NK, Fincher CL 2017. Unrestricted sexuality promotes distinctive short- and long-term mate preferences in women. Personal. Individ. Differ. 111:1169–73
- Nettle D, Pollet TV 2008. Natural selection on male wealth in humans. Am. Nat. 172:5658–66
- O'Connor M 2008. Reconstructing the hymen: mutilation or restoration?. J. Law Med. 16:161–75
- Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI 1999. Withholding age as putative deception in mate search tactics. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20:153–69
- Pawlowski B, Koziel S 2002. The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evol. Hum. Behav. 23:2139–49
- Pedersen FA 1991. Secular trends in human sex ratios. Hum. Nat. 2:3271–91
- Perusse D 1993. Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels. Behav. Brain Sci. 16:2267–83
- Petersen JL, Hyde JS 2010. A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychol. Bull. 136:121–38
- Pettay JE, Helle S, Jokela J, Lummaa V 2007. Natural selection on female life-history traits in relation to socio-economic class in pre-industrial human populations. PLOS ONE 2:7e606
- Pierce CA 1996. Body height and romantic attraction: a meta-analytic test of the male-taller norm. Soc. Behav. Personal. 24:2143–49
- Pisanski K, Feinberg DR 2013. Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness, symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cult. Res. 47:2162–97
- Puts D 2016. Human sexual selection. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 7:28–32
- Regan PC 1998. What if you can't get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24:121294–303
- Rhodes G, Simmons LW, Peters M 2005. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success. Evol. Hum. Behav. 26:2186–201
- Røskaft E, Wara A, Viken Å, Betzig L 1992. Reproductive success in relation to resource-access and parental age in a small Norwegian farming parish during the period 1700–1900. Ethol. Sociobiol. 13:443–61
- Scelza BA 2011. Female choice and extra-pair paternity in a traditional human population. Biol. Lett. 7:889–91
- Scelza BA, Prall SP 2018. Partner preferences in the context of concurrency: what Himba want in formal and informal partners. Evol. Hum. Behav. 39:2212–19
- Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R 1999. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:14311913–17
- Schmitt DP 2005. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behav. Brain Sci. 28:2247–75
- Schmitt DP 2012. When the difference is in the details: a critique of “Stepping out of the Caveman's Shadow: Nations' Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences.”. Evol. Psychol. 10:4720–26
- Schmitt DP 2014. On the proper functions of human mate preference adaptations: comment on Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, and Hunt (2014). Psychol. Bull. 140:666–72
- Schmitt DP 2014. The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are…it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. The Evolution of Sexuality TK Shackelford, RD Hansen 221–56 Berlin: Springer
- Schmitt DP 2017. What type of person would agree to have sex with a stranger?. Psychology Today June 28. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201706/who-would-agree-have-sex-total-stranger
- Schmitt DP, Alcalay L, Allik J, Alves ICB, Anderson CA et al. 2017. Narcissism and the strategic pursuit of short-term mating: universal links across 11 world regions of the International Sexuality Description Project-2. Psychol. Top. 26:89–137
- Schmitt DP, Buss DM 1996. Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:61185–204
- Schmitt DP, Long AE, McPhearson A, O'Brien K, Remmert B, Shah SH 2017. Personality and gender differences in global perspective. Int. J. Psychol. 52:S145–56
- Schmitt DP, Shackelford TK 2008. Big Five traits related to short-term mating: from personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evol. Psychol. 6:2246–82
- Schützwohl A, Fuchs A, McKibbin WF, Shackelford TK 2009. How willing are you to accept sexual requests from slightly unattractive to exceptionally attractive imagined requestors. Hum. Nat. 20:3282–93
- Simpson JA, Gangestad SW 1992. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J. Personal. 60:131–51
- Sohn K 2017. Men's revealed preference for their mates' ages. Evol. Hum. Behav. 38:158–62
- Starkweather KE, Hames R 2012. A survey of non-classical polyandry. Hum. Nat. 23:2149–72
- Stoet G, Geary DC 2018. The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychol. Sci. 29:581–93
- Sugiyama LS 2005. Physical attractiveness: an adaptationist perspective. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology DM Buss 292–342 New York: Wiley
- Symons D 1979. The Evolution of Human Sexuality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
- Tadinac M, Hromatko I 2007. Own mate value and relative importance of a potential mate's qualities. Stud. Psychol. 49:3251–64
- Todd PM, Penke L, Fasolo B, Lenton AP 2007. Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. PNAS 104:3815011–16
- Todosijević B, Ljubinković S, Arančić A 2003. Mate selection criteria: a trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. Evol. Psychol. 1:1116–26
- Valentine KA, Li NP, Penke L, Perrett DI 2014. Judging a man by the width of his face: the role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events. Psychol. Sci. 25:3806–11
- van Anders SM, Hamilton LD, Watson NV 2007. Multiple partners are associated with higher testosterone in North American men and women. Horm. Behav. 51:3454–59
- Voland E, Engel C 1990. Female choice in humans: a conditional mate selection strategy of the Krummhörn women (Germany, 1720–1874). Ethology 84:2144–54
- Von Rueden C, Gurven M, Kaplan H 2010. Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 278:2223–32
- Voracek M, Haubner T, Fisher ML 2008. Recent decline in nonpaternity rates: a cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychol. Rep. 103:3799–811
- Wang G, Cao M, Sauciuvenaite J, Bissland R, Hacker M et al. 2018. Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females. Evol. Hum. Behav. 39:220–25
- Waynforth D, Dunbar R 1995. Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: evidence from “Lonely Hearts” advertisements. Behaviour 132:9/10755–79
- Williams GC 1975. Sex and Evolution Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
- Winch R 1958. Mate Selection New York: Harper & Row
- Wolf M, Musch J, Enczmann J, Fischer J 2012. Estimating the prevalence of nonpaternity in Germany. Hum. Nat. 23:2208–17
- Zentner M, Eagly AH 2015. A sociocultural framework for understanding partner preferences of women and men: integration of concepts and evidence. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 26:1328–73
Data & Media loading...
- Article Type: Review Article
Most Read This Month
Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed
-
-
Job Burnout
Vol. 52 (2001), pp. 397–422
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being
Vol. 52 (2001), pp. 141–166
-
-
-
Mediation Analysis
Vol. 58 (2007), pp. 593–614
-
-
-
-
-
Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It
Vol. 63 (2012), pp. 539–569
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals
Vol. 53 (2002), pp. 109–132
-
- More Less