Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mate Copying Is Moderated by Relationship Recency and Potentially by Breakup Responsibility

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Evolutionary Psychological Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the phenomenon of mate copying and whether it may be affected by the recency of potential mate’s last relationship and their breakup responsibility. Mate-seekers may make inferences about the suitability of potential mates based upon such factors. Participants included 119 female and 42 male undergraduate students and members of the wider public who responded to an online questionnaire asking them to make judgments about hypothetical romantic partners. Consistent with the mate copying phenomenon and previous findings, results indicated that women considered men formerly in relationships (ending 6 months or 2 years ago) more desirable than men without relation experience or those currently partnered. However, those ending relationships more recently (within the last month) were considered less desirable. Being in a former relationship, but not too recently, may have increased mate copying (as measured by relative desirability), because of the inferences invoked about a man’s level of commitment. However, no such trend emerged for men evaluating women. Furthermore, previous relationship breakup responsibility was found to be critically important for both men and women. Individuals were rated as more desirable if their last relationship breakup was mutual compared to the conditions where either they or their former partner was responsible. It was concluded that mate-seekers are closely attentive to particular aspects of a prospective partner’s relationship history.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarøe, L., Osmundsen, M., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). Distrust as a disease avoidance strategy: individual differences in disgust sensitivity regulate generalized social trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1038–1051.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Surbey, M. K. (2014). I want what she’s having: evidence for human mate copying. Human Nature, 25(3), 342–358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2(Pt. 3), 349–368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bleske, A. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Poaching, promiscuity, and deceit: combatting mating rivalry in same-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 8(4), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, R. I., Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Generalization in mate-choice copying in humans. Behavioral Ecology, 23(1), 112–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bressan, P., & Stranieri, D. (2008). The best men are (not always) already taken: female preference for single versus attached males depends on conception risk. Psychological Science, 19(2), 145–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. R., & Fawcett, T. W. (2005). Sexual selection: copycat mating in birds. Current Biology, 15(16), 626–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 292–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. (2012). I like who you like, but only if I like you: female character affects mate-choice copying. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 691–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De La Croix, D., & Mariani, F. (2015). From polygyny to serial monogamy: a unified theory of marriage institutions. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(2), 565–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGue, S., & DiLillo, D. (2004). Understanding perpetrators of nonphysical sexual coercion: characteristics of those who cross the line. Violence and Victims, 19(6), 673–688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Mate-choice copying in single and coupled women: the influence of mate acceptance and mate rejection decisions of other women. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 89–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dugatkin, L. A. (1992). Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. The American Naturalist, 139(6), 1384–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. J., & Doria, M. V. (2010). Simulated attraction increases opposite sex attractiveness ratings in females but not males. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Scandell, D. J., Faulkner, K., & Claus, R. E. (2007). Perceived physical attractiveness, sexual history, and sexual intentions: an internet study. Sex Roles, 56(1–2), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Wood, T. J. (2006). Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(12), 1573–1574.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, H. E. (1989). Evolution of human serial pairbonding. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 78(3), 331–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galef, B. G., & Laland, K. N. (2005). Social learning in animals: empirical studies and theoretical models. Bioscience, 55(6), 489–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. M., & Höglund, J. (1992). Copying and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7(7), 229–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: opposite effects for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 635–647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., & Pizarro, D. A. (2016). Pathogens and politics: current research and new questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(6), 365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., & Feinberg, D. R. (2007). Social transmission of face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1611), 899–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. The handbook of evolutionary psychology, 68–95.

  • Kavaliers, M., Matta, R., & Choleris, E. (2017). Mate-choice copying, social information processing, and the roles of oxytocin. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 72, 232–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Caldwell, C. A. (2008). Social influence in human face preference: men and women are influenced more for long-term than short-term attractiveness decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(2), 140–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Caldwell, C. A. (2011). Social learning and human mate preferences: a potential mechanism for generating and maintaining between-population diversity in attraction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366(1563), 366–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundqvist, D., Flykt, A., & Öhman, A. (1998). The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces—KDEF, CD ROM from Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institutet, ISBN 91–630–7164–9.

  • Manna, S. (2009). The wedding ring effect revisited (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States.

  • Manning, J. T. (1985). Choosy females and correlates of male age. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 116(3), 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milonoff, M., Nummi, P., Nummi, O., & Pienmunne, E. (2007). Male friends, not female company, make a man more attractive. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 44(5), 348–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagen, S., Johnson, A., Lardi, G., & Keenan, J. P. (2003). The effect of relationship status on perceived attractiveness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(3), 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1255–1266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J., & Burkley, M. (2009). Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1016–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, W. C., Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A. D., & Yang, Y. (2002). Evolved sex differences in the number of partners desired? The long and the short of it. Psychological Science, 13(2), 157–161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2010). Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 320–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G. (2001). The reproductive priming effect. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 29(3), 245–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruett-Jones, S. (1992). Independent versus nonindependent mate choice: do females copy each other? The American Naturalist, 140(6), 1000–1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C. (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. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1294–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodeheffer, C. D., Proffitt Leyva, R. P., & Hill, S. E. (2016). Attractive female romantic partners provide a proxy for unobservable male qualities: the when and why behind human female mate choice copying. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(2), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. W. (1992). Discrepancies between men and women in reporting number of sexual partners: a summary from four countries. Social Biology, 39(3–4), 203–211.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanik, C. E. (2009). Romantic relationships: an examination of partner evaluation, women’s mate preferences, and dynamics in long-term relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan, United States.

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uller, T., & Johansson, C. (2003). Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect: are married men more attractive? Human Nature, 14(3), 267–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A. (2011). Mate choice copying and nonindependent mate choice: a critical review. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 48(2), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2010a). Nonindependent mate choice in monogamy. Behavioral Ecology, 21(5), 898–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2010b). Mate quality bias: sex differences in humans. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 47(2), 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2012). Do women really like taken men? Results from a large questionnaire study. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(1), 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M. J., & Pruett-Jones, S. G. (1990). Female copying increases the variance in male mating success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87(15), 5749–5753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans. Human Nature, 18(3), 264–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: examining the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 375–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorzinski, J. L., & Platt, M. L. (2010). Same-sex gaze attraction influences mate-choice copying in humans. PlosOne, 5(2), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang, J. Y., Xie, J., Hu, D., Fan, M., & Zheng, L. (2016). A role of DLPFC in the learning process of human mate copying. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all the research participants who took part in this study. We also appreciate the helpful feedback of two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, College of Health Care Sciences, Division of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia

    Ryan C. Anderson, Michele K. Surbey & David A. Mitchell

Authors
  1. Ryan C. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michele K. Surbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David A. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan C. Anderson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

ᅟ

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. None of the authors have any industry affiliations.

ᅟ

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, R.C., Surbey, M.K. & Mitchell, D.A. Mate Copying Is Moderated by Relationship Recency and Potentially by Breakup Responsibility. Evolutionary Psychological Science 4, 301–311 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0141-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0141-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation