Advertisement

Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 364–386 | Cite as

Mate Choice Copying in Humans: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Amany Gouda-Vossos
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
  • Barnaby J. W. Dixson
  • Robert C. Brooks
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Objective

Mate choice copying (MCC) is a type of non-independent mate choice where the ‘probability of acceptance’ of a potential mate increases if they are observed to be chosen by others first. The phenomenon was first demonstrated in several non-human taxa, with studies on humans conducted shortly after. The effect has been consistently documented among women choosing men (female choice), with mixed results among men choosing women (male choice). To understand and test the overall level of support for MCC in humans, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a sensitivity analysis for publication bias.

Methods

We found that the two most commonly used methods of studying MCC in humans involved either the ‘addition’ of a cue (opposite sex other) or the ‘augmentation’ of cues (manipulating ‘mate quality’ of opposite sex other). We performed separate meta-analyses for these two approaches, splitting each into male choice and female choice.

Results

Women were more likely to rate male targets as more desirable when presented alongside a female while no obvious effects were detected with male choice. These sex differences disappeared in studies that ‘augment’ cues, as both sexes rated targets as more attractive when in the presence of more desirable others. We also detected high levels of heterogeneity in effect sizes and a moderate publication bias in favor of positive reports of MCC.

Conclusions

Our results provide clarification for documented sex differences (or lack thereof) in human MCC. We also discuss the importance of method consistency in studies that transfer ideas from non-human to human behavioral studies, highlighting replication issues in the light of the publication crisis in psychological science.

Keywords

Mate choice copying Mate preferences Sex differences Social judgment Desirability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant awarded to RCB.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40750_2018_99_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 20 kb)
40750_2018_99_MOESM2_ESM.csv (1 kb)
ESM 2 (CSV 1 kb)
40750_2018_99_MOESM3_ESM.csv (1 kb)
ESM 3 (CSV 533 bytes)
40750_2018_99_MOESM4_ESM.csv (0 kb)
ESM 4 (CSV 370 bytes)
40750_2018_99_MOESM5_ESM.csv (0 kb)
ESM 5 (CSV 222 bytes)
40750_2018_99_MOESM6_ESM.xlsx (301 kb)
ESM 6 (XLSX 301 kb)
40750_2018_99_MOESM7_ESM.xlsx (581 kb)
ESM 7 (XLSX 580 kb)
40750_2018_99_MOESM8_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 8 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Adair, L., Dillon, H., & Brase, G. (2017). I’ll have who She’s having: Mate copying, mate poaching, and mate retention. In M. L. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 31–336). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., & Surbey, M. K. (2014). I want what she's having evidence of human mate copying. Human Nature-an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 25(3), 342–358.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-014-9202-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auld, H. L., Punzalan, D., Godin, J. G. J., & Rundle, H. D. (2009). Do female fruit flies (drosophila serrata) copy the mate choice of others? Behavioural Processes, 82(1), 78–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-tal, D., & Saxe, L. (1976). Perceptions of similarly and dissimilarly attractive couples and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(6), 772–781.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.33.6.772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers, R. I., Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2012). Generalization in mate-choice copying in humans. Behavioral Ecology, 23(1), 112–124.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, R. (1996). Copying and the repeatability of mate choice. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39(5), 323–329.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, R. (1998). The importance of mate copying and cultural inheritance of mating preferences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(2), 45–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01253-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, R. (1999). Mate choice copying in guppies: Females avoid the place where they saw courtship. Behaviour, 136, 411–421.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853999501397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, C. M., Daniels, E. R., Lustgraaf, C. J. N., & Sacco, D. F. (2014). Verbal compliments as a differential source of mate poaching threat for men and women. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(4), 736–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M. (1991). Sex-differences in human mate preferences - evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3), 519–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory - an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buunk, B., & Hupka, R. B. (1987). Cross-cultural differences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. The Journal of Sex Research, 23(1), 12–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498709551338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chu, S. M. (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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(82)90027-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davies, A. P. C., Shackelford, T. K., & Hass, R. G. (2007). When a "poach" is not a poach: Re-defining human mate poaching and re-estimating its frequency. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(5), 702–716.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9158-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeWall, C. N., & Maner, J. K. (2008). High status men (but not women) capture the eye of the beholder. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 328–341.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dubois, F. (2007). Mate choice copying in monogamous species: Should females use public information to choose extrapair mates? Animal Behaviour, 74, 1785–1793.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.03.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dugatkin, L. A. (1996a). Copying and mate choice. In C. M. Heyes & B. G. Galef Jr. (Eds.), Social learning in animals: The roots of culture (pp. 85–105). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dugatkin, L. A. (1996b). Interface between culturally based preferences and genetic preferences: Female mate choice in poecilia reticulata. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93(7), 2770–2773.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.7.2770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dugatkin, L. A. (2000). The imitation factor: Evolution beyond the gene. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, J. G. J. (1992). Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (poecilia-reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 249(1325), 179–184.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1992.0101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duval, S. (2006). The trim and fill method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127–144). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89–98.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2669529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.061367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fedorov, S. (2002). GetData Graph Digitizer version 2.24. Get data-graph-digitizer-com, Russia.Google Scholar
  33. Frazier, R. S., & Hasselman, F. (2015, April 21). Replication of Bressan & Stranieri (2008, PS, Study 2). found in Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
  34. Galef, B. G., & White, D. J. (1998). Mate-choice copying in japanese quail, coturnix coturnix japonica. Animal Behaviour, 55, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Galef, B. G., Lim, T. C. W., & Gilbert, G. S. (2008). Evidence of mate choice copying in Norway rats, rattus norvegicus. Animal Behaviour, 75, 1117–1123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0000337x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 27–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gibson, R. M., & Hoglund, J. (1992). Copying and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 7(7), 229–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(92)90050-l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gouda-Vossos, A., Dixson, B. J., & Brooks, R. C. (2016). Sexual conflict and gender gap effects: Associations between social context and sex on rated attractiveness and economic status. PLoS One, 11(1), e0146269.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hartnett, J., & Elder, D. (1973). Princess and nice frog - study in person perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 37(3), 863–866.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1973.37.3.863. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999). The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology, 80(4), 1150–1156.  https://doi.org/10.2307/177062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5). Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207313728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D., Stroebe, W., Shaud, K. F., Pinner, B. E., & Layton, B. D. (1973). Implied evaluation and similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(3), 297–308.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jennions, M. D., & Petrie, M. (1997). Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews, 72(2), 283–327.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0006323196005014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.0205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kirkpatrick, M., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1994). Sexual selection and the evolutionary effects of copying mate choice. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 34(6), 443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Knight, J. (2000). Move over Casanova. Resourse Document. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822684-500-move-over-casanova/. Accessed 15 March 2017.
  51. Kraak, S. B. M. (1996). 'Copying mate choice': Which phenomena deserve this term? Behavioural Processes, 36(1), 99–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(95)00020-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lafleur, D. L., Lozano, G. A., & Sclafani, M. (1997). Female mate-choice copying in guppies, poecilia reticulata: A re-evaluation. Animal Behaviour, 54, 579–586.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Little, A. C., Caldwell, C. A., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011a). Effects of partner beauty on opposite-sex attractiveness judgments. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1119–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9806-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Caldwell, C. A. (2011b). Social learning and human mate preferences: A potential mechanism for generating and maintaining between-population diversity in attraction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 366(1563), 366–375.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Little, A. C., Caldwell, C. A., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2015). Observer age and the social transmission of attractiveness in humans: Younger women are more influenced by the choices of popular others than older women. British Journal of Psychology, 106(3), 397–413.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 175–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meiners, M. L., & Sheposh, J. P. (1977). Beauty or brains: Which image for your mate? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(2), 262–265.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727700300222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Grp, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–W264.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2009). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. (vol 82, pg 591, 2007). Biological Reviews, 84(3), 515–515.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00083.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Noble, D. W., Lagisz, M., O'dea, R. E., & Nakagawa, S. (2017). Non-independence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Molecular Ecology, 26(9), 2410–2425.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nordell, S. E., & Valone, T. J. (1998). Mate choice copying as public information. Ecology Letters, 1(2), 74–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pruett-Jones, S. (1992). Independent versus nonindependent mate choice - do females copy each other. American Naturalist, 140(6), 1000–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1086/285452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rodeheffer, C. D., Leyva, R. P. 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), 147470491665214.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916652144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schlupp, I., & Ryan, M. J. (1997). Male sailfin mollies (poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of other males. Behavioral Ecology, 8(1), 104–107.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/8.1.104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schmitt, D. P., & Members Int Sexuality D. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person's partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 560–584.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sigall, H., & Landy, D. (1973). Radiating beauty - effects of having a physically attractive partner on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(2), 218–224.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Strane, K., & Watts, C. (1977). Females judged by attractiveness of partner. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45(1), 225–226.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1977.45.1.225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Street, S. E., Morgan, T. J. H., Thornton, A., Brown, G. R., Laland, K. N., & Cross, C. P. (2018). Human mate-choice copying is domain-general social learning. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1715.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19770-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Swaddle, J. P., Cathey, M. G., Correll, M., & Hodkinson, B. P. (2005). Socially transmitted mate preferences in a monogamous bird: A non-genetic mechanism of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 272(1567), 1053–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tidwell, N. D., & Eastwick, P. W. (2013). Sex differences in succumbing to sexual temptations: A function of impulse or control? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1620–1633.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Cambell (Ed.), Sexual selection & the descent of man (pp. 136–179). London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
  81. Uller, T., & Johansson, L. C. (2003). Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect - are married men more attractive? Human Nature-an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 14(3), 267–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1006-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vakirtzis, A. (2011). Mate choice copying and nonindependent mate choice: A critical review. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 48(2), 91–107.  https://doi.org/10.5735/086.048.0202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2010). Mate quality bias: Sex differences in humans. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 47(2), 149–157.  https://doi.org/10.5735/086.047.0208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. (2012a). Do women really like taken men? Results from a large questionnaire study. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(1), 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2012b). Human nonindependent mate choice: Is model female attractiveness everything? Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 225–237.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Venables, W. N., & Smith, D. M. (2005). the R development core team. An Introduction to R. Notes on R: A Programming Environment for Data Analysis and Graphics.Google Scholar
  87. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wade, M. J., & Pruettjones, S. G. (1990). Female copying increases the variance in male mating success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(15), 5749–5753.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.15.5749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans. Human Nature-an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 18(3), 264–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9004-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2014). Darwin's forgotten idea: The social essence of sexual selection. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 501–508.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Westneat, D. F., Walters, A., McCarthy, T. M., Hatch, M. I., & Hein, W. K. (2000). Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Animal Behaviour, 59, 467–476.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Winegard, B., Winegard, B., Reynolds, T., Geary, D. C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). One’s better half: Romantic partners function as social signals. [journal article]. Evolutionary. Psychological Science, 3(4), 294–305.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0095-7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Witte, K., & Godin, J. G. J. (2010). Mate choice copying and mate quality bias: Are they different processes? Behavioral Ecology, 21(1), 193–194.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Yorzinski, J. L., & Platt, M. L. (2010). Same-sex gaze attraction influences mate-choice copying in humans. PLoS One, 5(2), e9115.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth & Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of PsychologyThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations