1932

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408
2019-01-04
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/70/1/annurev-psych-010418-103408.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson K 2006. How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Curr. Anthropol. 47:3513–20
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersson MB 1994. Sexual Selection Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  4. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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
  6. Arnqvist G, Rowe L 2013. Sexual Conflict Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  7. 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
    [Crossref]
  8. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD 2012. Sexual economics, culture, men, and modern sexual trends. Society 49:6520–24
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Berscheid E, Walster E 1974. Physical attractiveness. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol 7:157–215
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Betzig L 1989. Causes of conjugal dissolution: a cross-cultural study. Curr. Anthropol. 30:5654–76
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Betzig L 1992. Roman polygyny. Ethol. Sociobiol. 13:5–6309–49
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Borgerhoff Mulder MB 1990. Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy men: evidence for female choice in mammals?. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27:4255–64
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brewer G, Archer J 2007. What do people infer from facial attractiveness. J. Evol. Psychol. 5:139–49
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brewer G, Riley C 2009. Height, relationship satisfaction, jealousy, and mate retention. Evol. Psychol. 7:3447–89
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Broude GJ, Greene SJ 1976. Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology 15:409–29
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Buss DM 1988.a The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54:4616–28
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Buss DM 1989.a Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 56:5735–47
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Buss DM 1989.b Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12:11–14
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Buss DM 1991. Mate selection for good parenting skills. Behav. Brain Sci. 14:3520–21
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Buss DM 1995. Psychological sex differences: origins through sexual selection. Am. Psychol. 50:164–68
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Buss DM 2015. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  30. Buss DM 2016. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating New York: Basic Books
  31. Buss DM 2018. The evolution of love in humans. The New Psychology of Love R Sternberg Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Buss DM, Barnes M 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50:3559–70
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Buss DM, Goetz C, Duntley JD, Asao K, Conroy-Beam D 2017. The mate switching hypothesis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 104:143–49
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Buss DM, Haselton M 2005. The evolution of jealousy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9:11506–7
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Buss DM, Larsen RJ, Westen D, Semmelroth J 1992. Sex differences in jealousy: evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychol. Sci. 3:4251–56
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Buss DM, Schmitt DP 1993. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100:2204–32
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Buss DM, Schmitt DP 2011. Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles 64:9–10768–87
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Buss DM, Shackelford TK 1997. From vigilance to violence: mate retention tactics in married couples. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:2346–61
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Buss DM, Shackelford TK 2008. Attractive women want it all: good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evol. Psychol. 6:1134–46
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Clark AP 2006. Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women. Personal. Individ. Differ. 41:71321–27
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Clark MS, Reis HT 1988. Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 39:609–72
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Clark RD, Hatfield E 1989. Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 2:139–55
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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
  49. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Cronk L, Dunham B 2007. Amounts spent on engagement rings reflect aspects of male and female mate quality. Hum. Nat. 18:4329–33
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Darwin C 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection London: Murray
  52. Darwin C 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex London: Murray
  53. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Dunbar RI 1993. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behav. Brain Sci. 16:4681–94
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Eagly AH, Wood W 1999. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am. Psychol. 54:6408–23
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 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..
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ 2017. Sex differences in jealousy: a 25-year retrospective. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 55:259–302
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Fieder M, Huber S 2007. Parental age difference and offspring count in humans. Biol. Lett. 3:6689–91
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Frank RH 1988. Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions New York: Norton
  62. Frayser S 1985. Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective New Haven, CT: HRAF Press
  63. Freud S, Strachey JE 1964. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud London: Hogarth Press
  64. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Gangestad SW, Buss DM 1993. Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Evol. Hum. Behav. 14:289–96
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Gangestad SW, Haselton MG, Buss DM 2006. Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychol. Inq. 17:275–95
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R 2008. Human oestrus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275:1638991–1000
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Garza R, Heredia RR, Cieslicka AB 2016. Male and female perception of physical attractiveness: an eye movement study. Evol. Psychol. 14:11474704916631614
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Genovese JE 2008. Physique correlates with reproductive success in an archival sample of delinquent youth. Evol. Psychol. 6:3369–85
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Gil-Burmann C, Peláez F, Sánchez S 2002. Mate choice differences according to sex and age. Hum. Nat. 13:4493–508
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Glass SP, Wright TL 1992. Justifications for extramarital relationships: the association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. J. Sex Res. 29:3361–87
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Grammer K 1992. Variations on a theme: age dependent mate selection in humans. Behav. Brain Sci. 15:1100–2
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Gray PB 2013. Evolution and human sexuality. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 152:S5794–118
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 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
  80. Greiling H, Buss DM 2000. Women's sexual strategies: the hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personal. Individ. Differ. 28:5929–63
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Guttentag M, Secord PF 1983. Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  82. Hald GM, Høgh-Olesen H 2010. Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:6453–58
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ 2012. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367:1589657–69
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Hewlett BS 1991. Demography and childcare in preindustrial societies. J. Anthropol. Res. 47:11–37
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Hill K, Hurtado AM 2017. Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  87. Hitsch GJ, Hortaçsu A, Ariely D 2010. What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quant. Mark. Econ. 8:4393–427
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Jankowiak W 1997. Romantic Passion: A Universal Experience? New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  91. Jonason PK, Buss DM 2012. Avoiding entangling commitments: tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personal. Individ. Differ. 52:5606–10
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Jonason PK, Luevano VX, Adams HM 2012. How the Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Personal. Individ. Differ. 53:3180–84
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Karremans JC, Frankenhuis WE, Arons S 2010. Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:3182–86
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Kennair LEO, Bendixen M, Buss DM 2016. Sexual regret: tests of competing explanations of sex differences. Evol. Psychol. 14:41474704916682903
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Kenrick DT, Keefe RC 1992. Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behav. Brain Sci. 15:175–91
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Khallad Y 2005. Mate selection in Jordan: effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 22:2155–68
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Li NP, Meltzer AL 2015. The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evol. Behav. Sci. 9:289–106
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Low BS 1991. Reproductive life in nineteenth century Sweden: an evolutionary perspective on demographic phenomena. Evol. Hum. Behav. 12:6411–48
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Lukaszewski AW, Roney JR 2010. Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31:129–38
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Marlowe FM 2003. The mating system of foragers in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cult. Res. 37:282–306
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Marlowe FW 2004. Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Hum. Nat. 15:4365–76
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Mikach SM, Bailey JM 1999. What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners?. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20:3141–50
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Miller G 2000. Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. Novartis Found. Symp. 233:260–70
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Minervini BP, McAndrew FT 2006. The mating strategies and mate preferences of mail order brides. Cross-Cult. Res. 40:2111–29
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Moss JH, Maner JK 2016. Biased sex ratios influence fundamental aspects of human mating. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42:172–80
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Muggleton NK, Fincher CL 2017. Unrestricted sexuality promotes distinctive short- and long-term mate preferences in women. Personal. Individ. Differ. 111:1169–73
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Nettle D, Pollet TV 2008. Natural selection on male wealth in humans. Am. Nat. 172:5658–66
    [Google Scholar]
  119. O'Connor M 2008. Reconstructing the hymen: mutilation or restoration?. J. Law Med. 16:161–75
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI 1999. Withholding age as putative deception in mate search tactics. Evol. Hum. Behav. 20:153–69
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Pawlowski B, Koziel S 2002. The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evol. Hum. Behav. 23:2139–49
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Pedersen FA 1991. Secular trends in human sex ratios. Hum. Nat. 2:3271–91
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Petersen JL, Hyde JS 2010. A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychol. Bull. 136:121–38
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Pierce CA 1996. Body height and romantic attraction: a meta-analytic test of the male-taller norm. Soc. Behav. Personal. 24:2143–49
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Pisanski K, Feinberg DR 2013. Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness, symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cult. Res. 47:2162–97
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Puts D 2016. Human sexual selection. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 7:28–32
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Rhodes G, Simmons LW, Peters M 2005. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success. Evol. Hum. Behav. 26:2186–201
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Scelza BA 2011. Female choice and extra-pair paternity in a traditional human population. Biol. Lett. 7:889–91
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Scheib JE, Gangestad SW, Thornhill R 1999. Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:14311913–17
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 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
  140. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Simpson JA, Gangestad SW 1992. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J. Personal. 60:131–51
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Sohn K 2017. Men's revealed preference for their mates' ages. Evol. Hum. Behav. 38:158–62
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Starkweather KE, Hames R 2012. A survey of non-classical polyandry. Hum. Nat. 23:2149–72
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Stoet G, Geary DC 2018. The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychol. Sci. 29:581–93
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Sugiyama LS 2005. Physical attractiveness: an adaptationist perspective. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology DM Buss 292–342 New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Symons D 1979. The Evolution of Human Sexuality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  151. Tadinac M, Hromatko I 2007. Own mate value and relative importance of a potential mate's qualities. Stud. Psychol. 49:3251–64
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Todd PM, Penke L, Fasolo B, Lenton AP 2007. Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. PNAS 104:3815011–16
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  154. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  155. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  156. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Voracek M, Haubner T, Fisher ML 2008. Recent decline in nonpaternity rates: a cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychol. Rep. 103:3799–811
    [Google Scholar]
  159. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Waynforth D, Dunbar R 1995. Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: evidence from “Lonely Hearts” advertisements. Behaviour 132:9/10755–79
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Williams GC 1975. Sex and Evolution Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  162. Winch R 1958. Mate Selection New York: Harper & Row
  163. Wolf M, Musch J, Enczmann J, Fischer J 2012. Estimating the prevalence of nonpaternity in Germany. Hum. Nat. 23:2208–17
    [Google Scholar]
  164. 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
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error