Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 264–271 | Cite as

Mate Choice Copying in Humans

  • D. Waynforth
Article
First Online:

Abstract

There is substantial evidence that in human mate choice, females directly select males based on male display of both physical and behavioral traits. In non-humans, there is additionally a growing literature on indirect mate choice, such as choice through observing and subsequently copying the mating preferences of conspecifics (mate choice copying). Given that humans are a social species with a high degree of sharing information, long-term pair bonds, and high parental care, it is likely that human females could avoid substantial costs associated with directly searching for information about potential males by mate choice copying. The present study was a test of whether women perceived men to be more attractive when men were presented with a female date or consort than when they were presented alone, and whether the physical attractiveness of the female consort affected women’s copying decisions. The results suggested that women’s mate choice decision rule is to copy only if a man’s female consort is physically attractive. Further analyses implied that copying may be a conditional female mating tactic aimed at solving the problem of informational constraints on assessing male suitability for long-term sexual relationships, and that lack of mate choice experience, measured as reported lifetime number of sex partners, is also an important determinant of copying.

Keywords

Cultural transmission Facial attractiveness Facial masculinity Mate choice Reproductive strategies Sexual selection 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Geoffrey Miller and three anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, and Bob Williams at Durham University for statistical advice.

References

  1. Agrawal, A. (2001). The evolutionary consequences of mate copying on male traits. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 51, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereczkei, T., Voros, S., Gal, A., & Bernath, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment: Reproductive decisions in human mate choice. Ethology, 103, 681–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1998). Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 151–170.Google Scholar
  4. Booth, A., & Dabbs, J. (1993). Testosterone and men’s marriages. Social Forces, 72, 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brase, G., & Walker, G. (2004). Male sexual strategies modify ratings of female models with specific waist-to-hip ratios. Human Nature, 15, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burley, N. (1988). The differential-allocation hypothesis: An experimental test. American Naturalist, 132, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82, 238–249.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, D., & Schmidt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dabbs, J., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, social class and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4,462 men. Psychological Science, 1, 209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dugatkin, L. (2000) The imitation factor. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dugatkin, L., & Godin, J. (1992). Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 249, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dugatkin, L., & Godin, J. (1993). Female mate copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): Age-dependent effects. Behavioral Ecology, 4, 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eva, K., & Wood, T. (2006). Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175, 1573–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furlow, B., Gangestad, S., & Armijo-Prewitt, T. (1998). Developmental stability and human violence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gangestad, S., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant, J., & Green, L. (1996). Mate copying versus preference for actively courting males by female Japanese Medaka. Behavioral Ecology, 7, 165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graziano, W., Jensen-Campbell, L., Shebilske, L., & Lundgren, S. (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
  19. Johnston, V., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature, 4, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Linville, S., Breitwisch, R., & Schilling, A. (1998). Plumage brightness as an indicator of parental care in Northern Cardinals. Animal Behavior, 55, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikach, S., & Bailey, J. M. (1999). What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Munger, L., Cruz, A., & Applebaum, S. (2004). Mate choice copying in female humpback limia. Ethology, 110, 563–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ostovich, J., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1255–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Qvarnstrom, A. (1997). Experimentally increased badge size increases male competition and reduces male parental care in the collared flycatcher. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 1225–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simpson, J., & Gangestad, S. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sundberg, J., & Larsson, D. (1994). Male coloration as an indicator of parental quality in the yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella. Animal Behavior, 48, 885–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swaddle, J. P., & Reierson, G. W. (2002). Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not facial attractiveness in human males. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 2285–2289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Udry, R. (1988). Biological predispositions and social control in adolescent sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 53, 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Uller, T., & Johansson, L. (2003). Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect: Are married men more attractive? Human Nature, 14, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verdonck, A., Gaethofs, M., Carels, C., & de Zegher, F. (1999). Effects of low dose testosterone treatment on craniofacial growth in boys with delayed puberty. European Journal of Orthodontics, 21, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waynforth, D. (1999). Differences in time use for mating and nepotistic effort as a function of male attractiveness in Rural Belize. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waynforth, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Conditional mate-choice strategies in humans: Evidence from lonely hearts advertisements. Behaviour, 132, 755–779.Google Scholar
  36. Waynforth, D., Delwadia, S., & Camm, M. (2005). The influence of women’s mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiehn, J. (1997). Plumage characteristics as an indicator of male parental quality in the American Kestrel. Journal of Avian Biology, 28, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Witte, K., & Ueding, K. (2003). Sailfin molly females copy the rejection of a male. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu, D., & Shepard, G. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, 396, 321–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DurhamDurhamUK
  2. 2.School of Medicine, Health Policy & PracticeUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options