Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

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

Benefits of Short-Term Mating

  • Ray GarzaEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_279-1
  • 7 Downloads

Synonyms

Definition

Direct and indirect benefits of engaging in short-term mating relationships.

Introduction

According to sexual strategies theory (SST), men and women evolved to adopt mating strategies that were aimed to solve recurring adaptive problems faced ancestrally (Buss and Schmitt 1993). Since men and women differ in their reproductive biology, sex differences are a fundamental component of SST, and therefore, the biological differences between the sexes influences the temporal dimension of mating strategies. For women, the heavy investment of pregnancy and child rearing means that reproduction is a costly process, whereas men only invest in sperm production, and paternal investment is not always certain. These sex differences in reproduction factor into the mating strategy utilized by men and women, as maximizing reproductive success may be favored by the least investing sex and maximizing parental investment may be...

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

References

  1. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy-an evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R. D, & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
  6. Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. (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, 348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2011). Eye-tracking of men’s preferences to waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durkee, P., Goetz, A. T., & Lukaszewski, A. (2017). Formidability assessment mechanisms: Examining their speed and automaticity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  9. Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist, 139(3), 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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(1576), 2023–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garza, R., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2019). Fertility status in visual processing of men’s attractiveness. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 1–17.Google Scholar
  13. Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1205–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(3), 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonason, P. K., Raulston, T., & Rotolo, A. (2012). More than just a pretty face and a hot body: Multiple cues in mate-choice. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrick, M., et al. (2018). No compelling evidence that preferences for masculinity track changes in women’s hormonal status. Psychological Science, 29, 996–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Quantifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kenrick, D. T., Growth, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, A., Bradshaw, H., Durante, K. M., & Hill, S. E. (2018). Life history, fertility, and short-term mating motivation. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  22. Little, A. C., Cohen, D. L., Jones, B. C., & Belsky, J. (2007). Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 967–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Little, A. C., Connely, J., Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2011). Human preferences for masculinity differs according to context in faces, bodies, voices, and smell. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 862–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marcinkowska, U. M., Rantala, M. J., Lee, A. J., Kozlov, M. V., Aavik, T., Cai, H., … Contreras-Garduno, J. (2018). Women’s preferences for men’s masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions. Scientific Reports, 9(3387), 1–10.Google Scholar
  25. Pazhoohi, F., Garza, R., Doyle, J., Macedo, A. F., & Arantes, J. (2019). Sex differences for preferences of shoulder to hip ratio in men and women: An eye tracking study. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(4), 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perilloux, C., & Cloud, J. M. (2019). Mate-by-numbers: Budget, mating context, and sex predict preferences for facial and bodily traits. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(3), 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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(4), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pillsworth, E. G., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2004). Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Platek, S. M., & Singh, D. (2010). Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men. PLoS One, 5(2), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prokop, P., Dylewski, L., Wozna, J. T., & Tryjanowski, P. (2018). Cues of woman’s fertility predict prices for sex with prostitutes. Current Psychology, 1–8.Google Scholar
  31. Provost, M. P., Komos, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Provost, M. P., Troje, N. F., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Short-term mating strategies and attraction to masculinity in point-light walkers. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 65-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sell, A., Lukazsweski, A. W., & Townsley, M. (2017). Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men's bodily attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284, 20171819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sohn, K. (2016). Men’s revealed preferences regarding women’s ages: Evidence from prostitution. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 175–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection & descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136-179). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Oklahoma Center for Evolutionary AnalysisOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Section editors and affiliations

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