Human Nature

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 267–276 | Cite as

Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect

Are married men more attractive?
Article

Abstract

Individuals are often restricted to indirect cues when assessing the mate value of a potential partner. Females of some species have been shown to copy each other’s choice; in other words, the probability of a female choosing a particular male increases if he has already been chosen by other females. Recently it has been suggested that mate-choice copying could be an important aspect of human mate choice as well. We tested one of the hypotheses, the so-called wedding ring effect—that women would prefer men who are already engaged or married—in a series of live interactions between men and women. The results show that women do not find men signaling engagement, or being perceived as having a partner, more attractive or higher in socioeconomic status. Furthermore, signs of engagement did not influence the women’s reported willingness to engage in short-term or long-term relationships with the men. Thus, this study casts doubt on some simplified theories of human mate-choice copying, and alternative, more complex scenarios are outlined and discussed.

Key words

Human mate choice Mate-choice copying Wedding ring effect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R. 1998 The Importance of Mate Copying and Cultural Inheritance of Mating Preferences. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:45–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dugatkin, L. A. 1992 Sexual Selection and Imitation: Females Copy the Mate Choice of Others. American Naturalist 139:1384–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 1996 Interface between Culturally Based Preferences and Genetic Preferences: Females Mate Choice in Poecilia reticulata. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 93:2770–2773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 2000 The Imitation Factor: Evolution Beyond the Gene. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Galef, B. G., and D. J. White 1998 Mate-Choice Copying in Japanese Quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Animal Behaviour 55:545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grant, J. W. A., and L. D. Green 1996 Mate Copying Versus Preference for Actively Courting Males by Female Japanese Medaka (Oryzias latipes). Behavioral Ecology 7:165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Höglund, J., R. V. Alatalo, R. M. Gibson, and A. Lundberg 1995 Mate-Choice Copying in Black Grouse. Animal Behaviour 49:1627–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirkpatrick, M., and L. A. Dugatkin 1994 Sexual Selection and the Evolutionary Effects of Copying Mate Choice. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 34:443–449.Google Scholar
  10. Knight, J. 2000 Move over Casanova. New Scientist 168:30–33.Google Scholar
  11. Pruett-Jones, S. 1992 Independent versus Nonindependent Mate Choice: Do Females Copy Each Other? American Naturalist 140:1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schlupp, I., and M. J. Ryan 1997 Male Sailfin Mollies (Poecilia latipinna) Copy the Mate Choice of Other Males. Behavioral Ecology 8:104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wade, M. J., and S. G. Pruett-Jones 1990 Female Copying Increases the Variance in Male Mating Success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA 87:5749–5753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Westneat, D. F., A. Walters, T. M. McCarthy, M. I. Hatch, and W. K. Hein 2000 Alternative Mechanisms of Nonindependent Mate Choice. Animal Behaviour 59:467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations