Skip to main content

Buss’ Mate Choice Theory

  • 53 Accesses

Synonyms

Evolutionary psychology; Human mating; Long-term mating; Mate preferences; Mating strategies; Short-term mating

Definition

Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) sexual strategies theory (SST) is a predominant evolutionary framework for understanding human mate preferences. SST proposes that mate preferences represent coherent suites of psychological mechanisms that have evolved to solve adaptive problems faced by humans in the pursuit of short- and long-term relationships, are sex-differentiated, and are context-dependent.

Introduction

From an evolutionary perspective, mating and reproduction are activities central to natural selection, and decisions made in one’s choice of mate carry significant consequences (Buss & Schmitt, 2019). Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) sexual strategies theory (SST) is an influential and predominant theory in this regard and provides an evolutionary framework for understanding why humans evolved to possess the particular preferences they show today. SST argues that...

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1993). Human sperm competition: Ejaculate manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm. Animal Behaviour, 46(5), 887–909.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 157–215). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(3), 211–218.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2013). The science of human mating strategies: An historical perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 171–177.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replicable. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 155–160.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., & Blanco-Villasenor, A. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–255.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Sexual strategies theory. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 1–5). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 23.1–23.34.

    CrossRef  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(1), 134–146.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., et al. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6(1), 125–150.

    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 the Family, 63(2), 491–503.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1967). Likeness and completeness theories examined by sixteen personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4), 351–361.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D. I., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy-Beam, D. (2018). Euclidean mate value and power of choice on the mating market. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 252–264.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 127–157.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Why do humans form long-term mateships? An evolutionary game-theoretic model. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 51, pp. 1–39). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2017). Sex differences in jealousy. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 259–302). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fales, M. R., Frederick, D. A., Garcia, J. R., Gildersleeve, K. A., Haselton, M. G., & Fisher, H. E. (2016). Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national U.S. studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 78–87.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9(1), 23–52.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(2), 89–96.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Merriman, L. A., & Thompson, M. E. (2010). Men’s oxidative stress, fluctuating asymmetry and physical attractiveness. Animal Behaviour, 80, 1005–1013.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  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(3), 203–207.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, A. T., & Causey, K. (2009). Sex differences in perceptions of infidelity: Men often assume the worst. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 253–263.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, P. B., Garcia, J. R., & Gesselman, A. N. (2019). Age-related patterns in sexual behaviors and attitudes among single US adults: An evolutionary approach. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 111–126.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69–80.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 453–458.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, J. (1985). Equity and intimate relations: Recent research. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 91–117). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, V. S. (2006). Mate choice decisions: The role of facial beauty. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 9–13.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The “booty call”: A compromise between men and women’s ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 1–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2010). Positioning the booty call on the spectrum of relationships: Sexual but more emotional than one-night stands. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1–10.

    CrossRef  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(1), 5–18.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny. Current Anthropology, 36(5), 723–748.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kamble, S., Shackelford, T. K., Pham, M., & Buss, D. M. (2014). Indian mate preferences: Continuity, sex differences, and cultural change across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 150–155.

    CrossRef  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(3), 182–186.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., & Gabrielidis, C. (1996). Adolescents’ age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67(4), 1499–1511.

    PubMed  CrossRef  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(1), 75–91.

    CrossRef  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(1), 97–116.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. J., Brooks, R. C., Potter, K. J., & Zietsch, B. P. (2015). Pathogen disgust sensitivity and resource scarcity are associated with mate preference for different waist-to-hip ratios, shoulder-to-hip ratios, and body mass index. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6), 480–488.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P. (2007). Mate preference necessities in long- and short-term mating: People prioritize in themselves what their mates prioritize in them. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 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, 947–955.

    PubMed  CrossRef  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(3), 468–489.

    PubMed  CrossRef  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(2), 291–294.

    CrossRef  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  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tsai, M.-H., Lai, M. H. C., Lim, A. J. Y., & Ackerman, J. M. (2020). Confidence is sexy and it can be trained: Examining male social confidence in initial, opposite-sex interactions. Journal of Personality, 88(6), 1235–1251.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Anderson, R. N., & Hayward, M. D. (1995). Marriage markets and marital choice. Journal of Family Issues, 16(4), 412–431.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1983). How to carry out the adaptationist program? The American Naturalist, 121(3), 324–334.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection: A repeat study. Social Forces, 36(4), 368–373.

    CrossRef  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  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mogilski, J. K., & Welling, L. L. M. (2017). The relative importance of sexual dimorphism, fluctuating asymmetry, and color cues to health during evaluation of potential partners’ facial photographs: A conjoint analysis study. Human Nature, 28(1), 53–75.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Orehek, E., Forest, A. L., & Barbaro, N. (2018). A people-as-means approach to interpersonal relationships. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 373–389.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (2005). Waist-to-hip ratio versus body mass index as predictors of fitness in women. Human Nature, 16(2), 164–177.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Baker, S., Tiddeman, B., Burt, D. M., et al. (2001). Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268(1476), 1617–1623.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Perilloux, C., & Kurzban, R. (2015). Do men overperceive women’s sexual interest? Psychological Science, 26(1), 70–77.

    PubMed  CrossRef  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(6696), 884–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368(6468), 239–242.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Platek, S. M., & Singh, D. (2010). Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men. PLoS One, 5(2), e9042.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J. P. (1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503–559.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266(1431), 1913–1917.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (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(1), 85–104.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2015). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology: Foundations (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 294–316). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    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(10), 643–649.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Rohde, P. A. (2013). The human polygyny index and its ecological correlates: Testing sexual selection and life history theory at the cross-national level: Human polygyny index. Social Science Quarterly, 94(4), 1159–1184.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., Duntley, J., Tooke, W., & Buss, D. M. (2001). The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies. Personal Relationships, 8(4), 425–455.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, T. K., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., LeBlanc, G. J., Bleske, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2000). Female coital orgasm and male attractiveness. Human Nature, 11(3), 299–306.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. (1994). Ideal female body shape: Role of body weight and waist-to-hip ratio. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16(3), 283–288.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. (1995). Female health, attractiveness, and desirability for relationships: Role of breast asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 465–481.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 176–181.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D., & Singh, D. (2011). Shape and significance of feminine beauty: An evolutionary perspective. Sex Roles, 64(9–10), 723–731.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. J. L., Perrett, D. I., Jones, B. C., Cornwell, R. E., Moore, F. R., Feinberg, D. R., et al. (2006). Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1583), 135–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sng, O., & Ackerman, J. M. (2020). Too many people, women, men? The psychological effects of population density and sex ratio. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 38–42.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, K. (2016). Men’s revealed preferences regarding women’s ages: Evidence from prostitution. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(4), 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.01.002

    CrossRef  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(6), 1074–1080.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, H., Matsuura, M., Yahata, N., Koeda, M., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2006). Men and women show distinct brain activations during imagery of sexual and emotional infidelity. NeuroImage, 32(3), 1299–1307.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. G., Jonason, P. K., Blackburn, J. D., Kennair, L. E. O., Lowe, R., Malouff, J., et al. (2020). Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 606–620.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 452–460.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2015). The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology: Foundations (pp. 3–87). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., & Roberts, L. W. (1993). Gender differences in mate preference among law students: Divergence and convergence of criteria. Journal of Psychology, 127, 507–528.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Meltzer, A. L., & Tsai, M.-H. (2020). Mate preferences for warmth-trustworthiness predict romantic attraction in the early stages of mate selection and satisfaction in ongoing relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 298–311.

    PubMed  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., et al. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, J. R., & Puts, D. A. (2015). Evolutionary science of female orgasm. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 123–148). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_7

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Winch, R. F. (1958). Mate-selection: A study of complementary needs. American Catholic Sociological Review, 19(2), 152–153.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zelazniewicz, A. M., & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female breast size attractiveness for men as a function of sociosexual orientation (restricted vs. unrestricted). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1129–1135.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bryan K. C. Choy or Norman P. Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Choy, B.K.C., Li, N.P. (2021). Buss’ Mate Choice Theory. In: Lykins, A.D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sexuality and Gender. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_44-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_44-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59531-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59531-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine & Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences