Definition
The physical and psychological traits that men prefer in their romantic partners and how these preferences differ between short-term romantic relationships and long-term romantic relationships.
Introduction
From an evolutionary perspective, men are expected to possess a set of mate preferences that are adaptively adjusted and calibrated based on whether they are pursuing short-term or long-term mating. Evidence reveals that men’s preferences do change in predictable directions based on their operative mating strategy: Preferences for cues of fertility and sexual accessibility take priority in short-term mating, whereas preferences for cues of reproductive value, health, and pleasant personality traits take priority in long-term mating. It is important to note that natural selection shapes motivational systems. Given that many of these motivational systems operate below conscious awareness, men may not be...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Cloud, J. M., & Perilloux, C. (2014). Bodily attractiveness as a window to women’s fertility and reproductive value. In V. A. Weekes-Shackelford & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 135–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., Lewis, D. M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Sexual exploitability: Observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 417–426.
Kenrick,D.T., & Keef, R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–91.
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.
Low, B. S. (1991). Reproductive life in nineteenth century Sweden: An evolutionary perspective on demographic phenomena. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 411–448.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.
Schmitt, D.P., Cauden, A., & A Baker, M. (2001). The effects of sex and temporal context an feelings of romantic desire: An exprimental evolution of sexual strategies Theory . Personality and social Psycology Bulletin, 27, 833–847.
Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–343). Hoboken: Wiley.
Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 1–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this entry
Cite this entry
Perilloux, C., Cloud, J.M. (2016). Preferences in Long- Versus Short-Term Mating. In: Weekes-Shackelford, V., Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_5-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_5-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences