Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Lowering Partner Standards in a Short-Term Mating Context

  • Andrew G. Thomas
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_264-1

Synonyms

Definition

Humans are more selective when considering partners for a long-term relationship compared to a short-term one.

Introduction

The characteristics modern men and women desire in a partner differ as a function of mating context. Overall, this pattern reflects a general “relaxing” of standards in a short-term mating context compared to a long-term one. For example, compared to a long-term partner, both sexes are willing to tolerate a prospective casual mate who is lower in intelligence, kindness, and social status (Kenrick et al. 1993; Li and Kenrick 2006).

However, not all standards are relaxed in the context of casual mating. Desire for physical attractiveness in a potential partner, for instance, appears to be maintained, or even enhanced, in a short-term mating context compared to a long-term one (Kenrick et al. 1993; Li and Kenrick 2006). Understanding why standards are lower in some...

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

References

  1. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00023992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5), 929–963.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00151-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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(6), 951–969.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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(3), 468–489.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 483–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(95)00074-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 137–168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2013.804899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Thomas, A. G., & Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). Mating strategy flexibility in the laboratory: Preferences for long- and short-term mating change in response to evolutionarily relevant variables. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(1), 82–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Tara DeLecce
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOakland UniversityRochesterUSA