Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 42, Issue 7, pp 1163–1171 | Cite as

The Malleability of Mate Selection in Speed-Dating Events

  • Geertjan Overbeek
  • Stefanie A. Nelemans
  • Johan Karremans
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
Original Paper

Abstract

This study examined to what extent individual mate selectivity could be explained by characteristics of the mating market. Specifically, we hypothesized that females’ selectivity would be more malleable, or context-dependent, than males’ mate selectivity (cf. Baumeister, 2000; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). In a series of 22 speed-dating events in which 546 adults aged 22–42 years participated, we investigated whether the proportion of available potential mates (i.e., male–female ratio), which sex rotated during the speed-date event (i.e., approached the other sex), and mate qualities of same-sex competitors affected individuals’ selectivity, as indexed by the proportion of no’s given during the speed-dating events. Results from multilevel analyses demonstrated that, as hypothesized, event characteristics explained mate selectivity only for females. Specifically, women with a lower facial attractiveness and more deviant body mass index (BMI) values were overall less selective, but this trend was only present in speed-dating events characterized by higher intrasex competition—when females rotated or when other females in the event were more attractive or had healthier BMI. The findings partially support the idea of “erotic plasticity” in females, demonstrating that females’ mate selectivity is more malleable and dependent on context than males’ mate selectivity.

Keywords

Speed-dating Mate selectivity Sex differences BMI Physical attractiveness 

References

  1. Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Belot, M., & Francesconi, M. (2006). Can anyone be “the” one? Evidence on mate selection from speed dating. Internal document, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (2001). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 92–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science, 20, 1290–1295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furnham, A., Dias, M., & McClelland, A. (1998). The role of body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractiveness. Sex Roles, 39, 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldstein, H. (1995). Hierarchical data modeling in the social sciences. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Shebilske, L. J., & Lundgren, S. R. (1993). Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 522–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ha, T., Overbeek, G., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1063–1070.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Halliwell, E., & Dittmar, H. (2005). The role of self-improvement and self-evaluation motives in social comparisons with idealised female bodies in the media. Body Image, 2, 249–261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive—Self similarity, complementarity, or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709–722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Latty-Mann, H., & Davis, K. E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice: Preference and actuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Penke, L., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the attunement of self-esteem to self-perceived mate value: Hints to an adaptive mechanism? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1123–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shackleford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of a woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 15011–15016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). London: Aldine.Google Scholar
  29. Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2009). Meeting your match: How attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 685–697.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Waynforth, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: Evidence from ‘lonely hearts’ advertisements. Behaviour, 132, 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geertjan Overbeek
    • 1
  • Stefanie A. Nelemans
    • 1
  • Johan Karremans
    • 2
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Child and Adolescent Studies, Department of Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Social SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Behavioural Science Institute, Faculty of Social SciencesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations