Skip to main content
Log in

Intra-sex Variation in Human Mating Strategies: Different People, Different Tactics

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated that men and women exhibit different romantic preferences, which align with the patterns predicted by sexual strategies theory. It is also assumed that the mate’s value is a central factor in determining an individual’s sexual strategy. Thus, the current study was developed to investigate whether intra-sex variation exists in the ideal romantic preferences of both genders and whether these preferences are associated with self-perception. To investigate these questions, cluster analyses were performed on the descriptions of ideal mates for short- and long-term relationships given by 366 Brazilian undergraduates (145 men and 221 women). Subsequently, comparisons were made between the lists of self-perceived attributes related to reproduction generated by the resulting groups. The results suggest that males and females use different mating tactics for short-term mating and that males use different tactics for long-term mating. Among men, the mating tactics observed seem to be related to male mate value and their tactics changed when they described ideal short- and long-term partners. Women’s results showed different preference patterns in short-term assessments but minor differences were observed between them in terms of female mate value. For long-term relationships, female patterns were less distinct, indicating a single preference pattern. These findings indicate that a number of different tactics may be clustered together in investigations that address ideal preferences, and that studies of mate preferences must consider individual self-perceptions.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, F. N., Hattori, W. T., & Lopes, F. A. (2012). Relationship maintenance or preference satisfaction? Male and female strategies in romantic partner choice. Journal of Social, Evolutionary & Cultural Psychology, 6, 217–226. doi:10.1037/h0099213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2011). Romantic preferences in Brazilian undergraduate students: From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 479–485. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.506680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1989). Mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 236, 339–372. doi:10.1098/rspb.1989.0027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Vincent, A. C. J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 58–60. doi:10.1038/351058a0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. J., & Searle, R. (2010). Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 69–80. doi:10.1348/000712609x417319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9448-4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Boyes, A. D. (2006). Accuracy and bias in romantic relationships: An evolutionary and social psychological analysis. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 189–209). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J. O., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659–672. doi:10.1177/0146167203262847.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42. doi:10.1080/00224490409552211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., Spiewak, S., Neto, F., & Plaza, S. H. (2012). Mate value and self-esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e36106. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036106.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowiak, W. R., Hill, E. M., & Donovan, J. M. (1992). The effects of sex and sexual orientation on attractiveness judgments: An evolutionary interpretation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 73–85. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90019-Z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2004). The effect of nonphysical traits on the perception of physical attractiveness: Three naturalistic studies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 88–101. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00006-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-V.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15, 365–373. doi:10.1007/s12110-004-1014-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nedelec, J. L., & Beaver, K. M. (2014). Physical attractiveness as a phenotypic marker of health: An assessment using a nationally representative sample of American adults. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 456–463. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1995). Biological markets. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10, 336–339. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89123-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9652-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B. (2000). The biological meaning of preferences on the human mate market. Anthropological Review, 63, 39–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. (2002). The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 139–149. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00092-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perilloux, C., Cloud, J. M., & Buss, D. M. (2013). Women’s physical attractiveness and short-term mating strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 490–495. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillsworth, E. G. (2008). Mate preferences among the Shuar of Ecuador: Trait rankings and peer evaluations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 256–267. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.005.

    Article  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, 1294–1303. doi:10.1177/01461672982412004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843–853. doi:10.1177/0265407500176008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surbey, M. K., & Brice, G. R. (2007). Enhancement of self-perceived mate value precedes a shift in men’s preferred mating strategy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 513–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 USA, 104, 15011–15016. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705290104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 173–206. doi:10.1007/bf01541580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., & Wasserman, T. H. (1995). Low-investment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 25–51. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(94)00027-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Psychology, 124, 371–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00008-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1173–1181. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9841-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of Man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, MI: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler-Hill, V., Campe, J. W., & Myers, E. M. (2009). How low will men with high self-esteem go? Self-esteem as a moderator of sex differences in minimum relationship standards. Sex Roles, 61, 491–500. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9641-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all the anonymous volunteers who contributed to this study and to all the individuals who allowed its execution, especially R. S. Tokumaru and M. E. Yamamoto. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their comments. This study was financed by the National Council of Technological and Scientific Development through the Millennium Institute for Evolutionary Psychology (Process No. 001795/2005-8) and a study scholarship (Process No. 133669/2007-6).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felipe Nalon Castro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castro, F.N., Hattori, W.T. & de Araújo Lopes, F. Intra-sex Variation in Human Mating Strategies: Different People, Different Tactics. Arch Sex Behav 44, 1729–1736 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0533-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0533-1

Keywords

Navigation