Skip to main content

Men’s Mate Value Correlates with a Less Restricted Sociosexual Orientation: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Men, relative to women, can benefit their total reproductive success by engaging in short-term pluralistic mating. Yet not all men enact such a mating strategy. It has previously been hypothesized that high mate value men should be most likely to adopt a short-term mating strategy, with this prediction being firmly grounded in some important mid-level evolutionary psychological theories. Yet evidence to support such a link has been mixed. This paper presents a comprehensive meta-analysis of 33 published and unpublished studies (N = 5928) in which we find that that self-reported mate value accounts for roughly 6% of variance in men’s sociosexual orientation. The meta-analysis provides evidence that men’s self-perceived mate value positively predicts their tendency to engage in short-term mating, but that the total effect size is small.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The analysis using SOI subscales controlled for random intercepts within lab-groups and within-study (not within paper), because multiple effect sizes were included from the same studies (and there were no duplicate papers).

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

  1. *Albert, G. (2019). Mate value data set. Boston, MA.

  2. *Arnocky, S. (2017). Intrasexual competition, gossip, and mating study.

  3. *Arnocky, S. (2018). Immunocompetence and morphology in men NSERC-DDG Study.

  4. Arnocky, S., Bird, B. M., & Perilloux, C. (2014a). An evolutionary perspective on characteristics of physical attractiveness in humans. In A. Rennolds (Ed.), Psychology of interpersonal perception and relationships (pp. 115–155). New York: Nova Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arnocky, S., Carré, J. M., Bird, B. M., Moreau, B. J. P., Vaillancourt, T., Ortiz, T., & Marley, N. (2018). The facial width to height ratio predicts sex drive, sociosexuality, and intended infidelity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 1375–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1070-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. *Arnocky, S., & Kelly, B. (2018). Nipissing online dating deception study. Unpublished data.

  7. *Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., Albert, G., & Norris, K. (2014b). Sex differences and individual differences in human facilitative and preventive courtship. Interpersona, 8(2), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v8i2.159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Arnocky, S., Woodruff, N. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Men’s sociosexuality is sensitive to changes in mate-availability. Personal Relationships, 23(1), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. *Back, M. D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Knowing your own mate value: Sex-specific personality effects on the accuracy of expected mate choices. Psychological Science, 22(8), 984–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611414725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bird, B. M., Carré, J. M., Knack, J. M., & Arnocky, S. (2016). Threatening men’s mate value influences aggression towards an intrasexual rival: The moderating role of narcissism. American Journal of Psychology, 129(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.2.0169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. *Blake, K. R., Bastian, B., & Denson, T. F. (2016). Perceptions of low agency and high sexual openness mediate the relationship between sexualization and sexual aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 42(5), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. *Botnen, E. O. (2017). Associations between picture-based mobile dating app use, sociosexuality, self-perceived mate value and self-esteem. Unpublished manuscript. Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2450312.

  13. *Brandner, J. L. (2019). Error management theory, signal detection theory, and the male sexual overperception effect. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

  14. *Brandner, J. L., Brase, G. L., & Huxman, A. J. (2020). “Weighting" to find the right person: Compensatory trait integrating versus alternative models to assess mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Butterfield, N. J. (2000). Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: Implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes. Paleobiology, 26(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2000)026%3c0386:BPNGNS%3e2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carré, J. M., McCormick, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2009). Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02423.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. *Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41(7), 1321–1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. (2014). The Mate Value scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27(4), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499009551579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fisher, M. L., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–644. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gomula, A., Nowak-Szczepanska, N., & Danel, D. P. (2014). Self-perceived sociosexuality and mate value asymmetry in heterosexual romantic relationships. Anthropological Review, 77(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.2478/anre-2014-0022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1082–1091. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. *Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. E. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. *Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1697–1711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215609064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: Diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(4), 156–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4%3c156::AID-EVANS%3e3.0.CO;2-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1166–1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of Affective Disorders, 75(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00048-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. *Kolze, K. E., Brase, G. L., & Brandner, J. L. (2019). Are mating strategies shaped by foraging strategies? Individual differences associated with search patterns through dating pools. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  35. Lalumière, M. L., Chalmers, L. J., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (1996). A test of the mate deprivation hypothesis of sexual coercion. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17(5), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0162-3095(96)00076-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-V.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. *Lee, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., Von Hippel, W., Brooks, R. C., & Zietsch, B. P. (2014). A multivariate approach to human mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. *Longman, D. P., Surbey, M. K., Stock, J. T., & Wells, J. C. K. (2018). Tandem androgenic and psychological shifts in male reproductive effort following a manipulated “win” or “loss” in a sporting competition. Human Nature, 29(3), 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9323-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. *Mak, K. W. (2019). Understanding human love: Romantic dealbreakers and their relationship with gender, commitment, mate value, and sociosexuality. Unpublished master's thesis, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

  40. Marlowe, F. (1999). Male care and mating effort among Hadza foragers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Meskó, N., Láng, A., & Kocsor, F. (2014). The Hungarian version of Sociosexual Orientation Inventory Revised (SOI-R): Sex and age differences. Interpersonal: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 8(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v8i1.130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. *Moon, J. W. (2019). Untitled data set. Unpublished data.

  43. *Moon, J. W., Krems, J. A., & Cohen, A. B. (2018). Religious people are trusted because they are viewed as slow life-history strategists. Psychological Science, 29(6), 947–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617753606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nascimento, B. S., Hanel, P. P. H., Monteiro, R. P., Gouveia, V. V., & Little, A. C. (2017). Sociosexuality in Brazil: Validation of the SOI-R and its correlates with personality, self-perceived mate value, and ideal partner preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 124(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. *Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. *Perrilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Testosterone and men’s overperception. Unpublished data.

  47. *Prokosch, M. (2019). Life history correlates in a student sample. Unpublished data.

  48. R Development Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rand, C. S., & Hall, J. A. (1983). Sex differences in the accuracy of self-perceived attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(4), 359–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Raw, C. J. (2008). Individual differences in sociosexual orientation and long-term mate value preferences. Unpublished manuscript. University of Edinburgh, UK. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/2952.

  51. *Rotella, A. (2020). Who cooperates and why? Investigations of the roles of individual differences and reputation in cooperative behaviours. Doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.

  52. *Rotella, A., & Barclay, P. (2019). Mating competition and cooperation: Restricted mating strategies are associated with prosociality. Manuscript in preparation.

  53. Sabini, J., & Green, M. C. (2004). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1375–1388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 266(1431), 1913–1917. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Schmitt, D. P., & 118 Members of the International Sexuality Description Project. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. *Seda, D., & Edlund, J. E. (2019). Consensual non-monogamy and personality. Manuscript in preparation.

  59. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Personality and sexuality: Empirical relations and an integrative theoretical model. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 71–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Starratt, V. G., Weekes-Shackelford, V., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Mate value both positively and negatively predicts intentions to commit an infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. *Strouts, P. H., Brase, G. L., & Dillon, H. M. (2017). Personality and evolutionary strategies: The relationships between HEXACO traits, mate value, life history strategy, and sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 115(1), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sugiyama, L. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–342). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  66. Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Penke, L., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Judging a man by the width of his face: The role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events. Psychological Science, 25(3), 806–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613511823.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 6(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. *Wagstaff, D. L., Sulikowski, D., & Burke, D. (2015). Sex differences in preference for looking at the face or body in short-term and long-term mating contexts. Evolution, Mind and Behavior, 13(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1556/2050.2015.0003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. *Williams, K. (2019). Untitled data set. Unpublished data.

  70. *Yilmaz, C. (2016). The origins of individual differences in romantic attachment: Evolutionary psychological insights. Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Psychology.

  71. *Znaor, J. (2014). The relationship between sex, sociosexuality, self-monitoring, and self-perceived mate value from the evolutionary perspective. Diploma Thesis, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu, Department of Psychology.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Steven Arnocky, Jessica Desrochers, and Amanda Rotella have contributed equally to this project. We would like to thank the following researchers for responding to our call and providing data: Jan Antfolk, Mitja Back, Jordann Brandner, Gary Brase, Dennis Fisher, Ben Jones, Satoshi Kanazawa, Anthony Lee, Aaron Lukaszewski, King Mak, Jordan Moon, Rebecca Owens, Carin Perilloux, Marjorie Prokosch, and Keelah Williams. Additionally, we would like to thank Nicole Barbaro (HBES) and Kelly Suschinsky (IASR) for sending out calls for data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Arnocky.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval/Informed Consent

Following articles 2.2 to 2.4 of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, ethics approval is not required for reanalysis of publicly available data or secondary use of data (article 5.5) which is provided without any identifier or group of identifiers which would allow attribution of private information to an individual.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 242 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 189 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arnocky, S., Desrochers, J., Rotella, A. et al. Men’s Mate Value Correlates with a Less Restricted Sociosexual Orientation: A Meta-Analysis. Arch Sex Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01937-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mate value
  • Sociosexual orientation
  • Mating strategies
  • Strategic pluralism theory
  • Sexual behavior
  • Meta-analysis