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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
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.
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.
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.
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454.
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//0022-35184.108.40.2062.
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.
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.
Brooks, R. (1996). Copying and the repeatability of mate choice. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39(5), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050296.
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.
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.
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.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Sex-differences in human mate preferences - evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3), 519–519.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.119.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dugatkin, L. A. (2000). The imitation factor: Evolution beyond the gene. New York: Simon and Schuster.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
Fedorov, S. (2002). GetData Graph Digitizer version 2.24. Get data-graph-digitizer-com, Russia.
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
Galef, B. G., & White, D. J. (1998). Mate-choice copying in japanese quail, coturnix coturnix japonica. Animal Behaviour, 55, 545–552.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.1918.104.22.1683.
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.
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5). Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kirkpatrick, M., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1994). Sexual selection and the evolutionary effects of copying mate choice. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 34(6), 443–449.
Knight, J. (2000). Move over Casanova. Resourse Document. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822684-500-move-over-casanova/. Accessed 15 March 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nordell, S. E., & Valone, T. J. (1998). Mate choice copying as public information. Ecology Letters, 1(2), 74–76.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1244.
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/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1990.
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.
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.
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.19188.8.131.52.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Cambell (Ed.), Sexual selection & the descent of man (pp. 136–179). London: Heinemann Educational.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This work was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant awarded to RCB.
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Gouda-Vossos, A., Nakagawa, S., Dixson, B.J.W. et al. Mate Choice Copying in Humans: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 4, 364–386 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-018-0099-y
- Mate choice copying
- Mate preferences
- Sex differences
- Social judgment