Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:33:59.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Human Mate Selection

A Multidimensional Approach

from Part VII - Sexual Selection and Human Sex Differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

By
Daniel Conroy-Beam  and
David M. Buss
Edited by
Lance Workman ,
Will Reader  and
Jerome H. Barkow
Lance Workman
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia
Get access

Summary

Ask a few people to describe their ideal partner and you will get the same response every time: a thoughtful pause followed by a deluge. Our partners must be kind, intelligent, and physically attractive. They should be in good health, good with people, good parents, and good providers. Some of our ideals are very specific: straight hair, freckled, with a gap between their front teeth. Others are more abstract: loyal, creative, passionate, and driven. Many ideals are almost contradictory: spontaneous but reliable; flexible but strong-willed; youthful but responsible. Humans seem picky when it comes to mate choice

And this pickiness makes great sense from an evolutionary perspective. For humans, a mate represents a potential reproductive partner, a parenting partner, a cooperation partner, and more. Throughout human evolutionary history, who an individual selected as their mate would have had profound impacts on their reproductive success.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior , pp. 353 - 365
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Billeter, J. C., Atallah, J., Krupp, J. J., Millar, J. G., & Levine, J. D. (2009). Specialized cells tag sexual and species identity in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature, 461(7266), 987–991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Byrne, P. G., & Rice, W. R. (2006). Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 273(1589), 917–922.Google Scholar
Campbell, L., Chin, K., & Stanton, S. C. (2016). Initial evidence that individuals form new relationships with partners that more closely match their ideal preferences. Collabra, 2(1), 2.Google Scholar
Candolin, U. (2003). The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews, 78(4), 575–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016a). Do mate preferences influence actual mating decisions? Evidence from computer simulations and three studies of mated couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016b). How are mate preferences linked with actual mate selection? Tests of mate preference integration algorithms using computer simulations and actual mating couples. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156078.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1082–1093.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: Mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(6), 440–448.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 277(1692), 2405–2410.Google ScholarPubMed
Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012). The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29265.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(2), 245–264.Google Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665.Google Scholar
Farrelly, D., Clemson, P., & Guthrie, M. (2016). Are women’s mate preferences for altruism also influenced by physical attractiveness? Evolutionary Psychology, 14(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and sociobiology, 14(2), 89–96.Google Scholar
Goetz, C. D., Easton, J. A., Lewis, D. M., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Sexual exploitability: Observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(4), 417–426.Google Scholar
Gottschall, J., Martin, J., Quish, H., & Rea, J. (2004). Sex differences in mate choice criteria are reflected in folktales from around the world and in historical European literature. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Men’s and women’s preferences in marital partners in the United States, Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 728–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.Google Scholar
Keller, M. C., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Wright, M. J., et al. (2013). The genetic correlation between height and IQ: Shared genes or assortative mating? PLoS Genetics, 9(4), e1003451.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.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.Google Scholar
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2007). Do advertised preferences predict the behavior of speed daters? Personal Relationships, 14(4), 623–632.Google Scholar
Lee, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., Von Hippel, W., Brooks, R. C., & Zietsch, B. P. (2014). A multivariate approach to human mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(3), 193–203.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M., Russell, E. M., Al-Shawaf, L., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Lumbar curvature: A previously undiscovered standard of attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 345–350.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., 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.Google Scholar
Low, B. S. (1988). Measures of polygyny in humans. Current Anthropology, 29(1), 189–194.Google Scholar
Low, B. S. (1991). Reproductive life in nineteenth century Sweden: An evolutionary perspective on demographic phenomena. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12(6), 411–448.Google Scholar
Loyau, A., Saint Jalme, M., Cagniant, C., & Sorci, G. (2005). Multiple sexual advertisements honestly reflect health status in peacocks (Pavo cristatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 58(6), 552–557.Google Scholar
Lüpold, S., Manier, M. K., Ala-Honkola, O., Belote, J. M., & Pitnick, S. (2011). Male Drosophila melanogaster adjust ejaculate size based on female mating status, fecundity, and age. Behavioral Ecology, 22(1), 184–191.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 56–68.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter–gatherers. Human Nature, 15(4), 365–376.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (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(4), 560–584.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(6), 894–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugiyama, L. S. (2004). Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder?: Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(1), 51–62.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, 104(38), 15011–15016.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19(2), 149–164.Google Scholar
Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(5), 331–351.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×