Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Evidence of Mate Preference Adaptations: How Do We Really Know What Homo sapiens sapiens Really Want?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior

Part of the book series: Evolutionary Psychology ((EVOLPSYCH))

Abstract

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, it is likely our species comes equipped with specialized psychological adaptations that influence the differing ways men and women pursue mating strategies. When short-term mating, men seem to preferentially desire easy sexual access and relax their mate preference desires so as to obtain large numbers of sexual partners. When women pursue short-term mates, they appear to increase their selectivity in mate choice and desire men who possess cues to “good genes.” In long-term mating, men preferentially emphasize fertility-related cues such as youth and physical attractiveness, whereas women desire a long-term mate who is able and willing to devote resources to her and their offspring. Overall, the empirical validity of most mate preference adaptations postulated by Sexual Strategies Theory (Psychological Review 100:204–232, 1993) is strong to moderate in evidentiary depth and breadth.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O’Connor, E., & Breiter, H. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron, 32, 537–551.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmetoglu, G., & Swami, V. (2012). Do women prefer ‘nice guys’? The effect of male dominance behavior on women’s ratings of sexual attractiveness. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 667–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. E., & Maner, J. K. (2012). Sex begets violence: Mating motives, social dominance, and physical aggression in men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 819–829.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, U. S., Perea, E. F., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., et al. (2010). I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 804–808.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Apicella, C., Feinberg, D. R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biology Letters, 3, 682–684.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J. B., Penke, L., & Back, M. D. (2011). From dating to mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality, 25, 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionary relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081–1093.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 537–545.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baize, H. R., & Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal ads: Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 517–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, E. S., Van Thurston, T., Jasienska, S., Furberg, G., Ellison, P. T., & Thune, I. (2013). Marriage and motherhood are associated with lower testosterone concentrations in women. Hormones and Behavior, 63(1), 72–79.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Are there gender differences in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereczkei, T., & Csanaky, A. (1996). Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betzig, L. (1986). Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 30, 654–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 217–233.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogaert, A. F., & Fisher, W. A. (1995). Predictors of university men’s number of sexual partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 32, 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnerup, J. A., Gramkow, A., Sorensen, P., Melbye, M., Adami, H.-O., Glimelius, B., et al. (2000). Correlates of heterosexual behavior among 23–87 year olds in Denmark and Sweden, 1992–1998. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62, 661–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, R. J., Markey, C. M., & Hodges, S. D. (2007). Sex differences in self-reported infidelity and its correlates. Sex Roles, 57, 101–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, M. F., & Bryan, A. (2006). Female waist-to-hip and male waist-to-shoulder ratios as determinants of romantic partner desirability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 805–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, A. D., Webster, G. D., & Mahaffey, A. L. (2011). The big, the rich, and the powerful: Physical, financial, and social dimensions of dominance in mating and attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 365–382.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, G. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2009). Vocal cues of ovulation in human females. Biology Letters, 5, 12–15.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burley, N., & Symanski, R. (1981). Women without: An evolutionary and cross-cultural perspective on prostitution. In R. Symanski (Ed.), The immoral landscape: Female prostitution in western societies (pp. 239–274). Toronto: Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., & Puts, D. A. (2011a). Men’s attractiveness predicts their preference for female facial femininity when judging for short-term, but not long-term partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 542–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., & Puts, D. A. (2011b). Mate-preference drives mate-choice: Men’s self-rated masculinity predicts their female partner’s preference for masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1023–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology. The new science of the mind (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. L. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. G. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 506–507.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–361.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, A. P., Dijkstra, P., Kenrick, D. T., & Warntjes, A. (2001). Age preferences for mates as related to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (2008). The morning after the night before: Affective reactions to one-night stands among mated and unmated women and men. Human Nature, 19, 157–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. (2005). Literature and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 931–952). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131–139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cashdan, E. (1996). Women’s mating strategies. Evolutionary Anthropology, 5, 134–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashdan, E. (2008). Waist-to-hip ratio across cultures: Trade-offs between androgen- and estrogen-dependent traits. Current Anthropology, 49, 1099–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2011). Romantic preferences in Brazilian undergraduate students. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 479–485.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S., Farr, D., Muñoz, L. C., & Lycett, J. E. (2011). Interpersonal trust and market value moderates the bias in women’s preferences away from attractive high-status men. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 143–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 771–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: Men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(2205), 348–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronk, L., & Dunham, D. (2007). Amounts spent on engagement rings reflect aspects of male and female mate quality. Human Nature, 18, 329–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61–72. 1991-01192-00110.1037.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. (1995). Their ideas of attractiveness are, on the whole, the same as ours: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, D. W., Sengupta, J., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Sex in advertising: Gender differences and the role of relationship commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 215–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, J. K. (1985). The utilization of sexual fantasies by sexually experienced university students. Journal of American College Health, 34, 24–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A. P. C., Shackelford, T. K., & Hass, R. G. (2007). When a ‘poach’ is not a poach: Re-defining human mate poaching and reestimating its frequency. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 702–716.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A. P. C., Shackelford, T. K., & Hass, R. G. (2010). Sex differences in perceptions of benefits and costs of mate poaching. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 441–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, H., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2004). Gender differences in affective responses to sexual rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 395–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Frederick, D. A., Haselton, M. G., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). Evidence for menstrual cycle shifts in women’s preferences for masculinity: A response to Harris (in press) “Menstrual Cycle and Facial Preferences Reconsidered”. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 768–775.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not by moral or sexual disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, M. G., Pieters, R., & Stremersch, S. (2012). Analysis of sensitive questions across cultures: An application of multigroup item randomized response theory to sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 543.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DelPriore, D. J., Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Envy: Functional specificity and sex-differentiated design features. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 317–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckerman, P. (2007). Lust in translation: The rules of infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M., & Li, N. P. (2012). Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 292–305.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women’s choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1451–1460.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2013, April 15). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0032432.

  • Elder, G. (1969). Appearance and education in marriage mobility. American Sociological Review, 34, 519–533.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 267–288). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, K., & Brase, G. L. (2007). Assessing sex differences and similarities in mate preferences: Above and beyond demand characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 781–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Law Smith, M. J., Moore, F. R., DeBruine, L. M., Cornwell, R. E., et al. (2006). Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 215–222.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenigstein, A., & Preston, M. (2007). The desired number of sexual partners as a function of gender, sexual risks, and the meaning of ‘ideal’. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 89–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fieder, M., & Huber, S. (2007). The effects of sex and childlessness on the association between status and reproductive output in modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 392–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, B., Neave, N., Brewer, G., & Pawlowski, B. (2007). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS): Further evidence for an adjustment in relation to own height. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2249–2257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J., Semple, S., Fickenscher, G., Jurgens, R., Kruse, E., Heistermann, M., et al. (2011). Do women’s voices provide cues of the likelihood of ovulation? The importance of sampling regime. PLoS One, 6, e24490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024490.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9, 23–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2009). The influence of male facial attractiveness on women’s receptivity. The Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3, 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowe, H. D., Swords, E., & Rockey, J. C. (2012). Women’s behavioural engagement with a masculine male heightens during the fertile window: Evidence for the cycle shift hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 285–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, A. C., White, D. D., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2007). Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 423–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galperin, A., Haselton, M. G., Frederick, D. A., von Hippel, W., Poore, J. C., Buss, D. M., et al. (2013). Sexual regret: Evidence for evolved sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1145–1161.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(69), 96.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E., & Christensen, P. N. (2004). Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15, 203–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 69–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 927–933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partners’ mate retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 975–982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Women’s sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 2023–2027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2010). Men’s facial masculinity predicts changes in their female partners’ sexual interests across the cycle, whereas men’s intelligence does not. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 412–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. R., MacKillop, J., Aller, E. L., Merriwether, A. M., Wilson, D. S., & Lum, J. K. (2010). Associations between dopamine D4 receptor gene variation with both infidelity and sexual promiscuity. PLoS One, 5, e14162. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014162.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Hormonal correlates of women’s mid-cycle preference for the scent of symmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Social Survey. (2013). 1972–2010. Retrieved March 4, 2013, from http://www3.norc.org/gss+website/

  • Giotakos, O. (2004). Gender differences in the perceptions for the ideal sex partner. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19, 373–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, H. J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 378–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschall, J. B., Berkey, R. C., Mitchell, D. C., Fleischner, M., Glotzbecker, M., Kernan, K., et al. (2003). Patterns of characterization in folktales across geographic regions and levels of cultural complexity: Literature as a neglected source of quantitative data. Human Nature, 14(3), 365–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41, 66–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Todd, M., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Interpersonal attraction from an evolutionary perspective: Women’s reactions to dominant and prosocial men. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141–167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregerson, E. (1982). Sexual practices: The story of human sexuality. London: Mitchell Beazley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of short-term mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greitemeyer, T. (2005). Receptivity to sexual offers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status, physical attractiveness, and intimacy of the offer. Personal Relationships, 12, 373–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1015–1026.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen, N. (2009). Menstrual cycle phases and female receptivity to a courtship solicitation: An evaluation in a nightclub. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 351–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen, N. (2011). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers: A field study testing the impact of the attractiveness of the solicitor. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 915–919. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9750-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen, N., & Lamy, L. (2012). Men’s social status and attractiveness: Women’s receptivity to men’s date requests. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71, 157–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierres, S. E., Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. (1983). Too many women? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, T., Overbeek, G. E., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1063–1071.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hald, G. M. (2006). Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 577–585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. L. (1987). Extradyadic relations during courtship. The Journal of Sex Research, 22(3), 382–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, B. (2000). Beauty, stature and the labour market: A British cohort study. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 62, 771–800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M. G., & Gildersleeve, K. (2011). Can men detect ovulation? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature, 17, 50–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 40–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick, S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Foote, M. J., & Foote, F. H. (1985). Gender differences in sexual attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1630–1642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrie, C. A., Mannion, H. D., & Godfrey, G. K. (2009). Evidence to suggest that nightclubs function as human sexual display grounds. Behaviour, 146, 1331–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. S. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions of women’s sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: An application and extension of cognitive valence theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. M. K. (1993). Gender differences in casual sex and AIDS prevention: A survey of dating bars. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessellund, H. (1976). Masturbation and sexual fantasies in married couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5, 133–147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (1996). Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging people. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010a). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100, 130–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010b). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://home.uchicago.edu/~ghitsch/Hitsch-Research/Guenter_Hitsch_files/Mate-Preferences.pdf

  • Howell, E. C., Etchells, P. J., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2012). The sexual overperception bias is associated with sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1012–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. M., Farley, S. D., & Rhodes, B. C. (2010). Vocal and physiological changes in response to the physical attractiveness of conversational partners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2004). Sex differences in mating strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity and multiple concurrent sex partners. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6, 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado, A. M., & Hill, K. (1992). Paternal effect on offspring survivorship among Ache and Hiwi hunter-gatherers: Implications for modeling pair-bond stability. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father–child relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 31–55). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, V. S. (2006). Mate choice decisions: The role of facial beauty. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 9–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, V. S., & Franklin, M. (1993). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 183–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, V. S., 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokela, M., Rotkirch, A., Rickard, I. J., Pettay, J., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 906–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Madson, L. (2012). It’s not all about the Benjamins: Understanding preferences for mates with resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 306–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology, 36, 723–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. C., & Barlow, D. H. (1990). Self-reported frequency of sexual urges, fantasies and masturbatory fantasies in heterosexual males and females. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 269–279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazawa, S., & Still, M. C. (2000). Teaching may be hazardous to your marriage. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 185–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kandrik, M., & DeBruine, L. M. (2013). Self-rated attractiveness predicts preferences for opposite-sex faces, while self-rated sex-typicality predicts preferences for same-sex faces. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karremans, J. C., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 182–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennair, L. E. O., Schmitt, D. P., Fjeldavli, Y. L., & Harlem, S. K. (2009). Sex differences in sexual desires and attitudes in Norwegian samples. Interpersona, 3, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Gabrielidis, C., Keefe, R. C., & Cornelius, J. S. (1996). Adolescents’ age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67, 1499–1511.

    PubMed  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210–217.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koukounas, E., & McCabe, M. (1997). Sexual and emotional variables influencing sexual response to erotica. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 221–230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, D. J., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2011). Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 365–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2007). Do advertised preferences predict the behavior of speed daters? Personal Relationships, 14, 623–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laeng, B., & Falkenberg, L. (2007). Women’s pupillary responses to sexually significant others during the hormonal cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 52, 520–530.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Landolt, M. A., Lalumiere, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, C. M., Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2012). Ovulatory shifts in women’s attractions to primary partners and other men: Further evidence of the importance of primary partner sexual attractiveness. PLoS One, 7, e44456. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044456.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Smith, M. J., Deady, D. K., Moore, F. R., Jones, B. C., Cornwell, R. E., Stirrat, M., et al. (2012). Maternal tendencies in women are associated with estrogen levels and facial femininity. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 12–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A., & Samson, C. (1988). Age, gender and adultery. The British Journal of Sociology, 39, 409–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m not hot, are you hot or not? Physical-attractiveness evaluations and dating preferences as a function of one’s own attractiveness. Psychological Science, 19, 669–677.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469–496.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, A. P., & Francesconi, M. (2010). How humans cognitively manage an abundance of mate options. Psychological Science, 21, 528–533.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. (2007). Mate preference necessities in long- and short-term mating: People prioritize in themselves what their mates prioritize in them. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 528–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955.

    PubMed  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., Valentine, K. A., & Patel, L. (2011). Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 291–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., et al. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 757–776.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Anderson, R. N., & Hayward, M. D. (1995). Marriage markets and marital choice. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 412–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipowicz, A. (2003). Effect of husbands’ education on fatness of wives. American Journal of Human Biology, 15(1), 1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(2), 193–208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: Data from the UK and the Hadza, and isolated group of hunter-gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 274, 3113–3117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2007). Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 52, 633–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1095–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2009). Estimated hormones predict women’s mate preferences for dominant personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 191–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2010). Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. (2009). Determinants and consequences of female attractiveness and sexiness: Realistic tests with restaurant waitresses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 737–745.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macrae, C. N., Alnwick, K. A., Milne, A. B., & Schloerscheidt, A. M. (2002). Person perception across the menstrual cycle: Hormonal influences on social-cognitive functioning. Psychological Science, 13(6), 532–536.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences, and evolutionary theory. The Journal of Communication, 46, 8–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J., et al. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107–1120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markey, P., & Markey, C. (2011). Changes in women’s interpersonal styles across the menstrual cycle. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 493–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza huntergatherers. Human Nature, 15, 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 254–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBurney, D. H., Zapp, D. J., & Streeter, S. A. (2005). Preferred number of sexual partners: Tails of distributions and tales of mating systems. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 271–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M. M., Asher, B. D., Kerr, N. L., & Navarrete, C. D. (2011). Fertility and intergroup bias in racial and minimal-group contexts evidence for shared architecture. Psychological Science, 22(7), 860–865.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, J. K., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2008). Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 135–143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mealey, L. (1985). The relationship between social status and biological success: A case study of the Mormon religious hierarchy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 249–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., Novak, S. A., Butler, E. A., & Karney, B. R. (2011). Marriages are more satisfying when wives are thinner than their husbands. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 416–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, M. (2013). Menstrual cycle changes in mate preferences for cues associated with genetic quality: The moderating role of mate value. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1), 18–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, M. G., & Ostlund, N. M. (2006). The effects of a parenting prime on sex differences in mate selection criteria. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1459–1468.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2010). Scent of a woman: Men’s testosterone responses to olfactory ovulation cues. Psychological Science, 21, 276–283.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Ovulation as a male mating prime: Subtle signs of women’s fertility influence men’s mating cognition and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 295–308.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., Tybur, J., & Jordan, B. D. (2007). Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 375–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1998). Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 569–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnen, S. K., & Stockton, M. (1997). Gender and self-reported sexual arousal in response to sexual stimuli: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 37, 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D. (2002). Height and reproductive success in a cohort of British men. Human Nature, 13, 473–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D., & Pollet, T. V. (2008). Natural selection on male wealth in humans. American Naturalist, 172, 658–666.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J. J. M., Feinberg, D. R., Fraccaro, P. J., Borak, D. J., Tigue, C. C., Re, D. E., et al. (2012). Female preferences for male vocal and facial masculinity in videos. Ethology, 118, 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberzaucher, E., Katina, S. T., Schmehl, S. F., Holzleitner, I. J., Mehu-Blantar, I., & Grammer, K. (2012). The myth of hidden ovulation. Shape and texture changes in the face during the menstrual cycle. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 163–175. doi:10.1556/JEP.10.2012.4.1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogas, O., & Gaddam, S. (2011). A billion wicked thoughts: What the world’s largest experiment reveals about human desire. New York: Dutton/Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Overbeek, G., Nelemans, S. A., Karremans, J., & Engels, R. C. (2013). The malleability of mate selection in speed-dating events. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1163–1171.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1016–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The causalities of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1999). Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 281–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Lipowicz, A. (2000). Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature, 403, 156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2005). Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected duration of relationship. Biological Psychology, 70, 38–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2008). Women’s body morphology and preferences for sexual partners’ characteristics. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., & Slawomir, K. (2002). The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 264–271.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23, 146–151.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perusse, D. (1994). Mate choice in modern societies: Testing evolutionary hypotheses with behavioral data. Human Nature, 5, 256–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pettay, J. E., Helle, S., Jokela, J., & Lummaa, V. (2007). Wealth class-specific natural selection on female life-history traits in historical human populations. PLoS One, 2, e606.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pflüger, L. S., Oberzaucher, E. K., Holzleitner, I. J., & Grammer, K. (2012). Cues to fertility: Perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 708–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, L., Dahl, M. S., & Nielsen, J. (2013). In sickness and in wealth: Psychological and sexual costs of income comparison in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin., 39(3), 359–374.

    PubMed  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. R. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness, symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cultural Research, 47, 162–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platek, S. M., & Singh, D. (2012). Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men. PLoS One, 5, e9042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollet, T. V., Pratt, S. E., Edwards, G., & Stulp, G. (2013). The golden years: Men from the Forbes 400 have much younger wives when remarrying than the general US population. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 4, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provost, M. P., Kormos, C., Kosakoski, G., & Quinsey, V. L. (2006). Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculinization and somatotype in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 305–312.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Provost, M. P., Troje, N. F., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Short-term mating strategies and attraction to masculinity in point-light walkers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 65–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnine, D. M., Carey, M. P., Jorgensen, R. S., & Randall, S. (1994). Gender differences regarding preferences for specific heterosexual practices. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 20, 271–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A. (2006). Cyclic variation in women’s preferences for masculine traits: Potential hormonal causes. Human Nature, 17, 114–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A., Welling, L. L. M., Burriss, R. P., & Dawood, K. (2012). Men’s masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners’ reported orgasm frequency and timing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.03.003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quist, M. C., Watkins, C. D., Smith, F. G., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2012). Sociosexuality predicts women’s preferences for symmetry in men’s faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1415–1421.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C. (1998a). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C. (1998b). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults’ motives for engaging in casual sex. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., Medina, R., & Joshi, A. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 625–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. R. (2010). Hooking up: Gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 390–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, L. A., Wades, T. J., & Grammer, K. (2004). Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 416–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, S. C., Havlicek, J., Flegr, J., Hruskova, M., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., et al. (2004). Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B, 271(Suppl. 5), S270–S272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röder, S., Brewer, G., & Fink, B. (2009). Menstrual cycle shifts in women’s self-perception and motivation: A daily report method. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 616–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roese, N. J., Pennington, G. L., Coleman, J., Janicki, M., Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex differences in regret: All for love or some for lust? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 770–780.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ronay, R., & von Hippel, W. (2010). The presence of an attractive woman elevates testosterone and physical risk taking in young men. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roney, J. R., Hanson, K. N., Durante, K. M., & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men’s faces: Women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1598), 2169–2175.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rule, N. O., Rosen, K. S., Slepian, M. L., & Ambady, N. (2011). Mating interest improves women’s accuracy in judging male sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 22, 881–886.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saad, G. (2008). Advertised waist-to-hip ratios of online female escorts: An evolutionary perspective. The International Journal of e-Collaboration, 4, 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco, D. F., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2012). The roles of sociosexual orientation and relationship status in women’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1044–1047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, C., & Symons, D. (2001). Warrior lovers: Erotic fiction, evolution, and female sexuality. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, K., Fink, B., Grammer, K., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., & Bookstein, F. L. (2006). Female appearance: Facial and bodily attractiveness as shape. Psychology Science, 48, 187–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J. E. (1994). Sperm donor selection and the psychology of female mate choice. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 8, 371–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2002). A meta-analysis of sex differences in romantic attraction: Do rating contexts affect tactic effectiveness judgments? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 387–402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005a). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 258–291). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005b). Is short-term mating the maladaptive result of insecure attachment? A test of competing evolutionary perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 747–768.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005c). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Angleiter, A., Ault, L., Austers, I., et al. (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, 560–584.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., Bennett, K. L., et al. (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, 85–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 894–917.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Couden, A., & Baker, M. (2001). Sex, temporal context, and romantic desire: An experimental evaluation of Sexual Strategies Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 833–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Jonason, P. K., Byerley, G. J., Flores, S. D., Illbeck, B. E., O’Leary, K. N., et al. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies reveal old truths? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15, 643–649.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schützwohl, A., Fuchs, A., McKibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). How willing are you to accept sexual requests from slightly unattractive to exceptionally attractive imagined requestors? Human Nature, 20, 282–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447–466.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sear, R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2009). How universal are human mate choices? Size does not matter when Hadza foragers are choosing a mate. Biology Letters, 5, 606–609.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, A., Bryant, G. A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., et al. (2010). Adaptations in humans for assessing physical strength from the voice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 277, 3509–3518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, T. K., Weekes, V. A., LeBlanc, G. J., Bleske, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2000). Female coital orgasm and male attractiveness. Human Nature, 11, 299–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoup, M. L., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2008). Men’s faces convey information about their bodies and their behavior: What you see is what you get. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 469–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigal, J., Gibbs, M. S., Adams, B., & Derfler, R. (1988). The effect of romantic and nonromantic films on perception of female friendly and seductive behavior. Sex Roles, 19, 545–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., Christensen, P., & Niels, K. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159–172.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breast, and hips: Role of judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 483–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A. (2004). Why do good hunters have higher reproductive success? Human Nature, 15, 343–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, F. G., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2010). Individual differences in empathizing and systemizing predict variation in face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 655–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soler, C., Nunez, M., Gutierrez, R., Núñez, J., Medina, P., Sancho, M., et al. (2003). Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, G. B., & Margolis, R. L. (1983). Marital separation and extramarital sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080.

    PubMed  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirrat, M., Gumert, M., & Perrett, D. (2011). The effect of attractiveness on food sharing preferences in human mating markets. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 79–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, E. A., Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Sex differences and similarities in preferred mating arrangements. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7, 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., & Pollet, T. V. (2013). Women want taller men more than men want shorter women. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 877–883.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Surbey, M. K., & Conohan, C. D. (2000). Willingness to engage in casual sex: The role of parental qualities and perceived risk of aggression. Human Nature, 11, 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadinac, M., & Hromatko, I. (2006). Strangers in the night or love forever: Characteristics and preferences of short vs. long-term relationship seekers. Psihologijske Teme, 15, 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teachman, J. (2010). Wives’ economic resources and risk of divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 1305–1323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 175–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., & Comer, R. (1995). Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour, 50, 1601–1615.

    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 of the United States of America, 104, 15011–15016.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 173–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Træen, B., & Martinussen, M. (2008). Extradyadic activity in a random sample of Norwegian couples. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 319–328.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Udry, J. R., & Eckland, B. K. (1984). Benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men and women. Psychological Reports, 54, 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berghe, P. L., & Frost, P. (1986). Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism, and sexual selection: A case of gene-culture co-evolution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 87–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voracek, M., Fisher, M. L., Hofhansl, A., Rekkas, P. V., & Ritthammer, N. (2006). ‘I find you to be very attractive…’ Biases in compliance estimates to sexual offers. Psicothema, 18, 384–391.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voracek, M., Hofhansl, A., & Fisher, M. L. (2005). Clark and Hatfield’s evidence of women’s low receptivity to male strangers’ sexual offers revisited. Psychological Reports, 97, 11–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walum, H., Westberg, L., Henningsson, S., Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Igl, W., et al. (2008). Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behavior in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(37), 14153–14156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisfeld, C. C., Dillon, L. M., Nowak, N. T., Mims, K. R., Weisfeld, G. E., Imamoğlu, E. O., et al. (2011). Sex differences and similarities in married couples: Patterns across and within cultures. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1165–1172.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welling, L. L. M., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Smith, F. G., Feinberg, D. R., Little, A. C., et al. (2008). Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high. Hormones and Behavior, 54, 703–708.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 331–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W., & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2010). What do women want? An interactionist account of women’s mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 749–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. D. (1987). Male–female differences in sexual activity, enjoyment, and fantasies. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 125–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, R. R. (2003). Applying contemporary statistical techniques. San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, J. C., & Li, N. P. (2012). Cash in hand, want better looking mate: Significant resource cues raise men’s mating standards. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 55–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youn, G. (2006). Subjective sexual arousal in response to erotica: Effects of gender, guided fantasy, erotic stimulus, and duration of exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 87–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 1176–1185.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, N., Parish, W. L., Huang, Y., & Pan, S. (2012). Sexual infidelity in China: Prevalence and gender-specific correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 861–873.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zion, I. B., Tessler, R., Cohen, L., Lerer, E., Raz, Y., Bachner-Melman, R., et al. (2006). Polymorphisms in the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) contribute to individual differences in human sexual behavior: Desire, arousal and sexual function. Molecular Psychiatry, 11, 782–786.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Bradley University, Peoria, IL, 61625, USA

    David P. Schmitt

Authors
  1. David P. Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David P. Schmitt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA

    Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

  2. Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA

    Todd K. Shackelford

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmitt, D.P. (2014). Evaluating Evidence of Mate Preference Adaptations: How Do We Really Know What Homo sapiens sapiens Really Want?. In: Weekes-Shackelford, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Evolutionary Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0314-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation