Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

M

Mate Preferences we pine for during absences, and who we write


books, plays, songs, poems, and films about. They
Daniel Conroy-Beam and David M. Buss affect who we select as mates; who we live with,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, support, and receive support from; and, for some,
USA with whom we raise children. They influence who
has experienced mating successes and failures in
our evolutionary past, which is key to which qual-
Synonyms ities increase or decrease in frequency over time.
Given this monumental importance, it is appropri-
Desires in mating; Mate choice; Mate selection ate that mate preferences have been one key cor-
nerstone of evolutionary psychological research.
This research uses an understanding of what pref-
Definition erences are for, that is, their evolved functions, to
understand what human preferences are like, that
Mate preferences are the outputs of psychological is, their content and nature. The study of mate
mechanisms designed to motivate people to pur- preferences has thus far been extraordinarily suc-
sue potential mates who possess particular quali- cessful, generating a large body of knowledge on
ties. Preferred features range widely. They include the content of human desire across cultures and
morphological (e.g., face or body shape), behav- across contexts.
ioral (e.g., kindness or dominance), or social (e.g.,
status or connections) attributes. Mate preferences
can be species typical, sex differentiated, individ- Why Do Mate Preferences Evolve?
ually variable within sex, culturally variable, and
predictably context dependent. Understanding mate preferences first requires an
understanding of why they evolve. Humans are a
sexually reproducing, social species who bear
Introduction offspring who are initially helpless and dependent
on parental investment for nearly two decades.
Human mate choice is not random. Given the For our species, a mate is thus is a reproduction
choice between a kind healthy partner and a partner, a potentially valuable cooperation part-
disease-afflicted cruel partner, most people ner, a source of social connections, a parenting
would prefer the first over the second. These pref- partner, and more. Who an ancestral human
erences determine who we are attracted to, who selected as a mate would have had direct impacts
# Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
T.K. Shackelford, V.A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1-1
2 Mate Preferences

on that person’s health, their resources, their sta- then, do organisms ever solve the adaptive prob-
tus, the parenting their children received, the traits lem of selecting fitness-beneficial mates?
their children inherited, and, ultimately, through One potential solution to the problem of mate
these many routes, their reproductive success. choice is mate preferences. Although organisms
Selection would have strongly favored the evolu- may never know what dimensions of variation it
tion of adaptations capable of guiding their should use to guide its mate selection, random
holders toward fitness-beneficial partners because mutations will eventually cause some organisms
individuals with these adaptations would have to have motivational biases in favor of pursuing
greatly outcompeted their reproductive rivals. mates with particular features. Most of these ran-
The challenge for sexually reproducing organ- dom preferences will motivate organisms to dis-
isms in mate selection is that they have no way, a criminate among potential mates along
priori, to determine which mates offer fitness ben- inconsequential dimensions or with nonfunctional
efits and which mates inflict fitness costs. Poten- valences. But a very small proportion of these
tial mates vary on innumerable trait and state mutations will cause organisms to be motivated
dimensions. Some mates are larger than others; to pursue mates who possess fitness-beneficial
some have longer limbs. Some control more features or to avoid mates with fitness-harmful
resources; others command more status. Some features. Those individuals who happen to
mates are kinder than others; some are more out- develop functional mate preferences will be
going. Some mates have a larger ratio of dirt on attracted to beneficial mates and, over deep time,
their upper body relative to their lower body. will be more likely to select adaptive mates and
Some have a higher or lower speed of fingernail experience reproductive success. In this way,
growth. Only a miniscule subset of the infinitely genes underlying preferences for fitness-
many dimensions along which potential mates beneficial features will tend to reproduce them-
differ would actually be relevant to the net fitness selves over time, causing sexually reproducing
benefits a potential mate offers. organisms to accumulate mate preferences for
Even if an organism could, against astronomi- fitness-beneficial features.
cal odds, guess which dimensions of variation
should be relevant to its mate selection, it would
have no means to know the valence the dimen- How Do Mate Preferences Evolve?
sions should be assigned. Is it better to have a
large mate or a small mate? Do older mates offer The evolution of mate preference adaptations will
more fitness benefits than younger mates? Does a be favored by selection to the extent that these
healthy mate offer more fitness benefits than a preferences guide organisms to fitness-beneficial
wealthy mate? The answers to these questions partners. There are at least two routes through
will depend on species, sex, mating strategy, and which preferences could provide fitness benefits:
context. A naïve organism could search the envi- direct benefits delivered to the mate selector and
ronment for its entire lifetime and still never deter- indirect benefits delivered to the mate
mine the correct valence to assign to even one selector’s kin.
dimension along which potential mates vary. Direct benefits delivered to the mate selec-
So sexually reproducing organisms face a crit- tor. The most obvious and likely most frequent
ical adaptive problem in selecting mates who offer route to the evolution of mate preferences is
them the largest net fitness benefits. Solving this through the receipt of direct benefits. Preferences
problem appears to be computationally intracta- offer direct fitness benefits when they guide
ble. Each organism has an infinite number of organisms to mates who offer fitness benefits
dimensions of variation along which it could eval- directly to the mate selector. A classic example
uate potential mates and an infinite number of is nuptial gifting in insects. Female katydids pre-
valences it could assign to each dimension. How, fer to mate with males who offer them “spermato-
phores”: packages of food which the females
Mate Preferences 3

consume during mating. These spermatophores Many species are, by design, bilaterally symmet-
are extremely energetically dense and provide ric: morphological traits on the left half of the
females the energy they need to survive and repro- body are supposed to be mirror copies of traits
duce. Because these spermatophores meet all of on the right half. Although this is the norm at the
the females’ energetic needs, females who are species level, few if any individuals are ever per-
provisioned can focus their time and energy on fectly symmetrical. Individuals will tend to show
reproduction rather than foraging. The preference random asymmetries throughout their bodies.
for males who provide spermatophores therefore Among birds, for example, although wings are
provides katydid females a direct fitness benefit of equal length on average, most individuals will
by allowing them to increase their own rate of have one wing that is slightly longer than the other
reproduction. (Møller and Pomiankowski 1993). These
Nuptial gifts concern the explicit exchange of asymmetries are typically slight, but can occa-
benefits between mates; however, direct benefits sionally be large.
can also come from less tangible sources. For Asymmetries are thought to reflect the stability
example, males of many reptile species prefer to of individuals’ development. Because organisms
mate with larger females (e.g., Shine et al. 2001). are supposed to be symmetric, asymmetries pro-
These preferences appear to evolve because larger vide a documentation of developmental “errors”:
females are generally able to produce more eggs. instances where the individual’s body failed to
Males who prefer to mate with larger females organize itself according to design. The develop-
consequently receive a direct fitness benefit in mental errors that cause asymmetries can also
that they can produce more offspring with their cause issues with survivability and health across
mates. several species. Further, these errors can result
What is key about direct fitness benefits is that from environmental stresses but can also emerge
they increase the reproduction of the mate selec- because of genetic mutations. Symmetry therefore
tor. These fitness benefits can be in the form of can signal direct benefits, but can also provide
mates who offer resources or offspring provision- indirect benefits: individuals who select symmet-
ing that allow the mate selector to direct extra time ric mates are selecting mates with heritable
and energy to reproduction. Benefits can come genetic endowments that on average produce
from access to prime territories or social groups healthier, more survivable offspring.
that provide shelter or resources. Or they can Any feature of a potential mate that provides
come from access to fertile partners with whom reproductive benefits to offspring provides,
the mate selector can produce many offspring. through inclusive fitness, an indirect fitness bene-
Securing any of these features in a potential mate fit to the mate selector. This can include heritable
will allow the holder of a mate preference to features that increase health, fertility, or competi-
produce more offspring and thereby better repro- tiveness on the mating market; but, particularly in
duce the genes underlying their preferences. cultural species, indirect benefits can also come
Indirect benefits delivered to the mate selec- from transmissible features such as wealth, status,
tor’s kin. The benefits of mate preferences need or knowledge. By selecting mates who can benefit
not go directly to the mate selector; fitness benefits one’s offspring, an individual with mate prefer-
can also flow indirectly by benefitting the kin of ences that yield indirect benefits will produce
the mate selector. Selection can, for instance, offspring who are more likely to survive and
favor the evolution of preferences for heritable reproduce and thereby reproduce the genes under-
features of potential mates if these preferences lying their mate preferences.
lead to offspring who are healthier, more fertile, Sensory exploitation. Many mate preferences
or more successful in acquiring mates. One com- across species appear to be functional, but prefer-
monly hypothesized preference for this class of ences can also evolve as byproducts of other
benefits across species involves the preference for adaptations. One common evolutionary route to
symmetry (Møller and Pomiankowski 1993). by-product preferences occurs when perceptual
4 Mate Preferences

adaptations evolved for other processes are selector and indirect benefits through benefits to
hijacked by potential mates to gain attraction in kin. These sources of benefits are often considered
the mating domain. This process is called “sen- categorically distinct, but it must be stressed that
sory exploitation” and appears to have created they can overlap. For instance, a preference for
mate preferences across several species. Tungara mates willing and able to invest resources in off-
frogs provide the prototypical case of sensory spring could provide direct benefits to the mate
exploitation. Females of this species prefer to selector by providing supplemental parental
mate with males who produce a distinctive investment but also indirect benefits if this provi-
chuck sound. However, this preference does not sioning increases offspring reproduction beyond
appear to be functional. Rather, female tungara what single parental investment would alone.
frogs have evolved a species detection system A preference for good immune functioning
which contains an auditory bias toward sound could provide indirect benefits by producing
frequencies produced by tungara frog males but healthier offspring but also direct benefits in low-
not by males of other frog species. After females ering the risk of being infected by partners. When
evolved this sensory bias, tungara frog males considering the functions of mate preferences,
evolved the chuck: a meaningless sound which researchers must take care to consider the many
happens to maximally stimulate females’ species and potentially overlapping functions of prefer-
detection system (Ryan et al. 1990). Female ence adaptations.
tungara frogs consequently show a mate prefer- Indirect benefit hypotheses further focus
ence for chucks that evolved purely as a largely on genetic benefits to direct offspring.
by-product of a species detection adaptation. But there are many potential ways by which pref-
Any perceptual adaptation that can motivate erences could provide indirect benefits to kin.
approach or avoidance can in principle be First, the kin receiving benefits need not be direct
exploited by potential mates to manipulate attrac- offspring. A gene for a mate preference could
tion in the mating domain. The exploitation of increase its own reproduction if it were able to
existing perceptual adaptations is therefore a provide fitness benefits to siblings or other genetic
potentially common route to the evolution of relatives. A mate whose status or resources are
mate preferences. The result in any case of sen- able to spill over and increase the reproduction of
sory exploitation is potential for a coevolutionary siblings can produce fitness benefits by increasing
arms race. Individuals of one sex will evolve the reproduction of preference genes they proba-
adaptations that allow them to better exploit their bilistically share with the mate selector. Mate
potential mates; in response, individuals of the preference researchers must consider the many
opposite sex will evolve sensory defenses to the potential targets of indirect benefits when hypoth-
extent that being exploited is costly. These esca- esizing evolved functions of mate preferences.
lating arms races will craft adaptations that shape
how organisms perceive and interact with their
worlds as well as shape their mating systems and
What Do We Know About Human Mate
mating behaviors. Understanding when and how
Preferences?
perceptual adaptations are exploited in the mating
domain can thus provide researchers insight into
Ample theory and evidence documents the ways
the nature of species’ perception and mating.
in which evolution has shaped mate preferences in
Outstanding theoretical issues in the evolu-
nonhuman species. Do human mate preferences
tion of preferences. Evolutionary biologists have
show the same evolutionary fingerprints? Mate
made considerable progress in developing theory
preference research has been a cornerstone of
concerning the evolution of mate preferences. But
evolutionary psychology since the field’s incep-
some areas of mate preference theory remain
tion (e.g., Buss 1989). This research has discov-
unclear or underdeveloped. One centers on the
ered an impressive and growing catalog of human
distinction between direct benefits to the mate
Mate Preferences 5

preferences evolved to serve a variety of How could ancestral men identify and select
functions. fertile partners, since fertility, unlike estrus, is not
Direct benefits. Humans across cultures hold directly observable? Men’s mate preferences
mate preferences hypothesized to have offered appear to have solved this adaptive problem by
direct fitness benefits to human ancestors. One drawing men to women who show cues statisti-
well-studied example concerns preferences for cally correlated with their fertility. Attributes of
resources in potential mates. Human offspring physical appearance and behavior provide a
are enormously costly, and they demand relatively wealth of potential cues. One is a woman’s body
large investments of resources to raise success- shape and particularly waist-to-hip ratio. Rela-
fully. This is particularly true for women, who tively low ratios of waist circumference to hip
alone face the substantial energetic, temporal, circumference are associated with young age,
and opportunity costs of pregnancy and up to non-pregnancy status, fewer diseases, and an eas-
several years of lactation. Analogous to female ier time getting pregnant. A low WHR is found
katydids, ancestral women could have partially attractive by men across cultures (Sugiyama
offset these large reproductive costs by preferen- 2005). Men’s mate preferences also guide them
tially mating with partners who were willing and toward mates with beneficial hormone profiles.
able to share resources with them. Higher levels of ovarian hormones, including
Modern women across cultures consequently estradiol, are associated with a higher likelihood
express a preference for potential mates who con- of conception (Lipson and Ellison 1996). Facial
trol resources that can be invested in them and femininity is strongly correlated with estradiol
their families. Buss (1989) surveyed 10,047 men levels in women; men are also strongly attracted
and women across 37 cultures for their mate pref- to women who are facially feminine (Smith
erences in an ideal, long-term relationship partner. et al. 2006). This hormone-attractiveness link
These cultures varied widely in religion, climate, emerges in facial attraction, but also holds and
and economic, political, and marriage systems. emerges for body attraction: controlling for BMI,
Yet despite this incredible diversity, in every cul- higher levels of estradiol are associated with
ture, women, more than men, expressed a strong higher levels of bodily attractiveness (Grillot
preference for potential mates who possess eco- et al. 2014). Through various probabilistic cues,
nomic resources. This preference is not limited to men’s mate preferences are able to guide them to
modern cultures: women among the Hadza mates who are relatively fertile.
hunter-gatherers express a preference for men Finally, one particularly important mate pref-
who are good hunters and therefore good pro- erence appears to capture direct benefits related to
viders of essential resources (Marlowe 2004). both resources and fecundity: preferences for the
Direct benefit preferences are not limited to age of potential mates. Age is a key cue to both
women. One critical adaptive problem ancestral fecundity – the capacity to produce
men would have faced in the mating domain is offspring – and resource acquisition. First,
identifying mates who are fertile. Men who were women are not fecund prior to puberty. After
able to target their mating effort toward women puberty, fecundity peaks roughly in the late
who were particularly fertile would produce more twenties and early thirties and then gradually
offspring than men attracted to less fertile women. declines until menopause. A women’s age is thus
However, women are fertile during only a rela- a rough cue to her fecundity. Age is also a cue to
tively narrow period of their lives – after puberty reproductive value: roughly, the number of future
and before menopause. Further, unlike many offspring a person can be expected to have.
other mammal species, human ovulation is rela- Reproductive value typically peaks in the late
tively concealed: whereas chimpanzees develop teens and early twenties and declines thereafter.
prominent genital swellings around ovulation, By seeking younger partners, ancestral men
human women show only small changes around would have increased their odds of finding fertile
the fertile period of the menstrual cycle. reproduction partners. Age is additionally a useful
6 Mate Preferences

cue to resource-earning potential. In both modern systems – can afford to produce large amounts
and traditional societies, men accrue more of testosterone and develop highly masculine fea-
resources when they are older than when they tures. Consistent with this hypothesis, facial mas-
are younger. By seeking older partners, ancestral culinity and asymmetry are correlated in men,
women could thus have increased their odds of suggesting they tap an underlying dimension of
securing partners with resources available to genetic quality (Gangestad and Thornhill 2003).
invest. By mating with masculine men, women with a
People accordingly show strong preferences preference for masculinity would bear offspring
for the age of their potential mates. Across cul- who inherit their good genes and thereby good
tures, men express a desire for younger partners immune systems. Evidence for attraction to mas-
whereas women express a desire for older partners culinity is mixed, but women do appear to be
(Buss 1989). This trend has held across decades in more attracted to masculine men in short-term,
India, China, and Brazil (see, e.g., Souza sexual contexts (e.g., Little et al. 2002).
et al. 2016). These preferences manifest not only Despite longstanding research focus on prefer-
in what people say but also in what they do: for ences for masculinity, two complications exist for
example, marriage records across cultures show the indirect benefit hypothesis: one methodologi-
that husbands tend to be older than their wives cal and one theoretical. First, evidence is mixed
(Kenrick and Keefe 1992). This difference that masculine features reflect circulating testos-
appears in marriage records extending as far terone levels as opposed to early life exposure to
back as the nineteenth century in Swedish records testosterone (e.g., Whitehouse et al. 2015). If
(Low 1991). masculine facial features do not reflect circulating
Indirect benefits. Providing evidence for pref- testosterone levels, then they do not clearly signal
erences evolved through indirect benefits is more the ability to bear the costs associated with pro-
difficult than providing evidence for preferences ducing large amounts of testosterone. Second,
evolved via direct benefits. Nonetheless, humans even if masculinity were clearly related to attrac-
have some mate preferences that are hypothesized tiveness and circulating testosterone, these find-
to have evolved because they supplied ancestral ings would not, on their own, suggest that
humans with indirect fitness benefits. One con- preferences for masculinity evolved because they
cerns symmetry: human bodies are bilaterally provided indirect benefits to human ancestors. An
symmetric by design, but all people show some alternative possibility is that preferences for mas-
degree of asymmetry. And just as in other bilater- culinity function to guide humans to healthy part-
ally symmetric species, humans show a prefer- ners. These partners would have provided human
ence for symmetry in potential mates. More ancestors direct benefits both in being less infec-
symmetric faces are found to be more attractive tious and in being more likely to survive to
in both experimentally manipulated and natural co-parent mutual offspring.
faces (e.g., Scheib et al. 1999). Contextual shifts in preferences. Histori-
Another prominent preference hypothesized to cally, at least some traits would have offered var-
have evolved via indirect benefits is women’s iable fitness benefits across contexts. Selection
preference for masculinity. Masculine facial, should have favored the evolution of mate prefer-
bodily, and behavioral attributes are thought to ence adaptations that are sensitive to these con-
signal exposure to testosterone. Testosterone textual shifts in fitness benefits. Preference
plays an important role in energy allocation: tes- mechanisms should take information about the
tosterone causes bodily systems to shift energy current state of the environment as input and
toward the development of muscle and away moderate the strength and nature of preferences
from maintenance processes such as immune in response. One context variable studied in the
functioning (Simmons and Roney 2009). There- extant literature is pathogen exposure. Pathogens
fore, it is thought that only men who have “good are more prevalent and pose a greater threat under
genes” – that is, those for robust immune some conditions and in some environments (e.g.,
Mate Preferences 7

warmer climates). Under such contexts, prefer- uncommitted, short-term partners, they substan-
ences for health in potential mates would have tially lower their preferences for kindness and
historically provided greater fitness benefits and intelligence, which presumably allows them to
so selection would have favored the evolution of mate with a variety of short-term partners. Impor-
preference mechanisms sensitive to pathogen tantly, men’s physical attractiveness preferences
prevalence. remain relatively strong across mating strategies:
Preferences for physical attractiveness in healthy and fertile partners are always beneficial
potential mates appear to be one such context- to men, and so preferences for these traits are
sensitive preference (Gangestad and Buss. relatively insensitive to mating context.
1993). Several studies suggest that physical Women’s mate preferences also shift across
attractiveness is at least a moderate cue to health context. One well-studied contextual shift con-
(Sugiyama 2005): people who are more physi- cerns shifts in women’s mate preferences as a
cally attractive tend to be healthier across a wide function of ovulatory status. A growing body of
array of indices. Ancestral humans who more literature suggests that when women are
heavily prioritized physical attractiveness under ovulating, they more strongly prefer potential
conditions of high pathogen threat would there- mates who are symmetric, with masculine bodies,
fore have been more likely to select partners who and show dominant behavioral displays
were able to survive disease threats and remain (Gildersleeve et al. 2014). These preference shifts
healthy. Additionally, to the extent that immune are generally stronger when women are consider-
functioning is heritable, these people would be ing short-term, sexual partners rather than long-
more likely to produce offspring with strong- term, committed, romantic partners. Because
enough immune systems to survive in their local, women can only conceive offspring when or just
high-pathogen threat environments. Accordingly, before they are ovulating, these preference shifts
modern humans living in ecologies with greater have been hypothesized to function in motivating
pathogens report stronger preferences for physical women to conceive offspring with partners who
attractiveness in potential mates (Gangestad and possess “good genes” – including those that allow
Buss 1993). Women’s preference for masculinity them to build and maintain symmetric and mas-
in potential partners specifically varies across cul- culine phenotypes. However, although many of
tures related to the health of those cultures: in these ovulatory shift effects appear to be empiri-
countries with greater health risks, such as patho- cally robust, the ultimate function of these shifts
gen threat, women express stronger preferences remains heavily debated. Alternative theoretical
for masculinity in potential mates (Debruine accounts include proposals that preference shifts
et al. 2010). are byproducts of adaptations calibrated to
Mate preferences differ across environments, between-women differences in fertility and
but they also shift within people across contexts. byproducts of adaptations designed to calibrate
For instance, the traits that are beneficial in a preferences to differences in fertility within
potential mate depend on the mating strategy one women between menstrual cycles (see, e.g.,
is pursuing. For men, a key benefit of short-term, Roney 2009).
uncommitted mating is access to multiple sexual
partners (Buss and Schmitt 1993). This access
would be hampered by mate preferences that set
What Is Not Known About Mate
high standards for potential mates. Men’s mate
Preferences?
preferences consequently shift as a function of
their mating strategy. When men are pursuing a
Despite the considerable and growing body of
long-term, high-commitment mating strategy,
knowledge, many uncertainties remain about the
their preferences set high standards for the intelli-
nature of human mate preferences. These ques-
gence and kindness of their potential mates
tions span the levels of Tinbergen’s four questions
(Kenrick et al. 1990). When men are pursuing
8 Mate Preferences

and include issues of the development, mecha- much learning can adjust the magnitude of mate
nism, and function of human preferences. preferences are still unknown.
Development. Mate preference research has Finally, relatively little is known about the
focused largely on the content of adult mate pref- developmental course of mate preferences across
erences. Almost no research explores how prefer- the lifespan. Many adaptive problems faced in
ences develop into these mature forms. This mate choice would have been age linked through-
developmental question encompasses several out human evolution. For example, women’s fer-
sub-questions. For instance, when, developmen- tility wanes at menopause. After this point,
tally, do mate preferences come online? Because features of potential mates related to heritable
mate preferences presumably function to guide benefits, such as the possession of good genes,
mate selection, one intuitive hypothesis is that could no longer provide fitness benefits. Accord-
mate preferences will not generally emerge until ingly, women’s mating strategies appear to shift
humans begin their mating careers – that is, at around menopause (Easton et al. 2010). These
puberty. However, some evidence indicates that shifts are hypothesized to function in motivating
at least preferences for physical attractiveness women to take advantage of their fertile years.
appear very early in life (e.g., Langlois However, this is just one preference shifting at
et al. 1987). Different preference adaptations one point in women’s lifespan. Little is known
may activate and deactivate at different points about the extent to which other preferences, such
across the lifespan depending on when they as those for resources, health, or fertility, change
would have been most functional throughout across the lifespan.
human evolutionary history. The developmental Mechanism. A central assumption of mate
emergence of mate preferences is a very open and preference research is that mate preferences moti-
important area of inquiry. vate people to pursue and select mates who fulfill
A second question concerns the factors that those preferences. But preference researchers do
affect the developmental trajectories of mate pref- not as yet understand how mate preferences are
erences. For example, mate preferences are integrated to make actual mating decisions. Given
known to vary somewhat across cultures (Buss preferences for mates who are, for example, intel-
1989; Gangestad and Buss 1993). These cultural ligent, kind, and physically attractive and an array
differences could be caused by psychological of potential mates who vary randomly on each of
adaptations that actively calibrate mate prefer- these dimensions, how exactly do people deter-
ences to local environments throughout the mine which mates are worth pursuing and which
lifespan. However, an alternative developmental are worth passing over? How do we weigh a mate
trajectory is that mate preferences are fixed rela- who is kind, attractive, and dull against a mate
tively early on in life by environmental cues expe- who is beautiful, smart, and rude?
rienced in infancy or childhood. This relates to a Human mate choice psychology must have
third question: to what extent are mate preference some psychological machinery that integrates
adaptations sensitive to sociocultural cues? That our many mate preferences into summary deci-
is, do people have adaptations designed to pro- sion variables, such as valuable as a mate or not.
mote learning of mate preferences from their cul- Several algorithms have been proposed for how
tures or social groups? Humans are known to this integration is accomplished. These include
engage in some degree of “mate copying”: a linear combinations similar to linear regression
learning process that appears across species (Buss and Schmitt 1993), aspiration models
wherein individuals learn to be attracted to poten- involving series of thresholds (Miller and Todd
tial mates based on the mate choices of others 1998), nonlinear models involving trade-offs
(Waynforth 2007). However, precisely what pref- between necessities and luxuries (Li et al. 2002),
erence adaptations include these learning features, and a Euclidean algorithm that minimizes the
how long these learned changes last, and just how distance between desires and potential mates
across multiple dimensions (Conroy-Beam and
Mate Preferences 9

Buss 2016). Understanding the nature of human Conclusion


preference integration will be key to understand-
ing both the content of human mate preferences Mate preferences have pervasive effects on
and the downstream effects of these preferences human life and human evolution. Mating is cen-
on mating outcomes. tral to differential reproduction, the engine of evo-
Function. Finally, mate preference research lution by selection. All living humans are
has been predominantly driven by functional descendants of a long and unbroken chain of
hypotheses that propose mate preferences evolved ancestors, each of whom successfully mated.
to solve adaptive problems faced throughout Consequently, the study of human preferences
human evolution. However, it is unlikely that all has been a large part of evolutionary psychology
human preferences are the functional outputs of since the field’s inception. This research program
adaptations. At least some preferences are likely begins with an understanding of how preferences
to be byproducts of other adaptations. For evolve, including the receipt of direct and indirect
instance, the most common explanation for why benefits as well as by-product processes such as
humans prefer symmetry is that symmetry cues sensory exploitation. The application of these
health and good genes (Grammer and Thornhill evolutionary theories has yielded a substantial
1994). But it has also been proposed that symme- body of evidence about the content of human
try preferences can emerge as byproducts of per- preferences. This includes cross-cultural,
ceptual adaptations designed merely to detect, but sex-differentiated preferences for features such
not evaluate, mates who happen to be imperfectly as possession of resources, future resource poten-
bilaterally symmetric (Johnstone 1994). These tial, symmetry, masculinity, and many cues to
hypotheses are not mutually exclusive: both func- fertility, such as youth, femininity, and low
tional and by-product preferences for symmetry waist-to-hip ratios. Preference research has also
could act to guide people toward symmetric uncovered context sensitivity of many prefer-
partners. ences, responsive to diverse circumstances such
Despite an apparent frequency of sensory as personal mate value, pathogen prevalence, and
exploitation in nonhuman animals (e.g., Ryan mating strategy. Despite this large and growing
et al. 1990), sensory exploitation hypotheses for body of knowledge, many questions remain open
the evolution of mate preferences have not been about mate preferences for future research. Pref-
explicitly explored in human mating. Many pref- erence researchers still have little understanding
erences whose functions are unclear – for of how mate preferences develop over the
instance, for attributes such as hair color and lifespan, how multiple preferences are integrated
styling, dressing, dancing abilities, and so with one another to make decisions about actual
on – could exist because they hijack preexisting mate choice, and how some preferences might
features of human perception. Exploring these have evolved through nonfunctional routes such
sensory exploitation hypotheses has potential to as sensory exploitation. Mate preference research
provide psychologists insight into human percep- is a large, successful, and vibrant research area
tion and human mating. with a long future ahead. The success of prefer-
The number and role of nonfunctional mate ence research contributes understanding of a large
preferences remains an open empirical question. and critical domain of human life and underscores
Full understanding of the breadth of human mate the value of applying an evolutionary perspective
preferences will require preference researchers to for understanding human psychology.
explore by-product hypotheses alongside func-
tional hypotheses as well as conduct empirical
tests that compete by-product and functional
Cross-References
hypotheses against one another for the ultimate
origins of human mate preferences.
▶ Cross-Cultural Evidence
10 Mate Preferences

▶ Evolutionary Standards of Female Johnstone, R. A. (1994). Female preference for symmetric


Attractiveness males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition.
Nature, 372(6502), 172–175.
▶ Fluctuating Asymmetry Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in
▶ Intersexual Selection mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive
▶ Men’s Mate Preferences strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(01),
▶ Older Men 75–91.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R.
▶ Preferences in Long Versus Short Term Mating (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human court-
▶ Sex Differences Versus Gender Symmetry ship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Jour-
▶ Social Status and Economic Resources nal of Personality, 58(1), 97–116.
▶ Waist to Hip Ratio Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M.,
Rieser-Danner, L. A., & Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant
▶ Women’s Mate Preferences preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereo-
type? Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 363.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A.
(2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate prefer-
References ences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate pref- Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (1996). Comparison of
erences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. salivary steroid profiles in naturally occurring concep-
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(01), 1–14. tion and non-conception cycles. Human Reproduction,
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies 11(10), 2090–2096.
theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M.,
Psychological Review, 100(2), 204. & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Partnership status and the tem-
Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). How are mate poral context of relationships influence human female
preferences linked with actual mate selection? Tests of preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape.
mate preference integration algorithms using com- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biolog-
puter simulations and actual mating couples. PLoS ical Sciences, 269(1496), 1095–1100.
One, 11(6), e0156078. Low, B. S. (1991). Reproductive life in nineteenth century
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, Sweden: An evolutionary perspective on demographic
L. L., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation phenomena. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12(6),
predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation 411–448.
in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biolog- hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15(4), 365–376.
ical Sciences, 277(1692), 2405–2410. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns
Easton, J. A., Confer, J. C., Goetz, C. D., & Buss, D. M. cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(5), 190–198.
(2010). Reproduction expediting: Sexual motivations, Møller, A. P., & Pomiankowski, A. (1993). Fluctuating
fantasies, and the ticking biological clock. Personality asymmetry and sexual selection. Genetica, 89(1–3),
and Individual Differences, 49(5), 516–520. 267–279.
Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen preva- Roney, J. R. (2009). The role of sex hormones in the
lence and human mate preferences. Ethology and initiation of human mating relationships. In The Endo-
Sociobiology, 14(2), 89–96. crinology of Social Relationships (pp. 246–269). Cam-
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Facial mascu- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
linity and fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Ryan, M. J., Fox, J. H., Wilczynski, W., & Rand, A. S.
Human Behavior, 24(4), 231–241. (1990). Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). frog. Physalaemus Pustulosus, 343(6253), 66–67.
Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovu- Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999).
latory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good
Bulletin, 140(5), 1205. genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo Biological Sciences, 266(1431), 1913–1917.
sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the Shine, R., O’connor, D., LeMaster, M. P., & Mason, R. T.
role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of compar- (2001). Pick on someone your own size: Ontogenetic
ative psychology, 108(3), 233. shifts in mate choice by male garter snakes result in
Grillot, R. L., Simmons, Z. L., Lukaszewski, A. W., & size-assortative mating. Animal Behaviour, 61(6),
Roney, J. R. (2014). Hormonal and morphological pre- 1133–1141.
dictors of women’s body attractiveness. Evolution and Simmons, Z. L., & Roney, J. R. (2009). Androgens and
Human Behavior, 35(3), 176–183. energy allocation: Quasi-experimental evidence for
Mate Preferences 11

effects of influenza vaccination on men’s testosterone. Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adapta-
American Journal of Human Biology, 21(1), 133–135. tionist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook
Smith, M. L., Perrett, D. I., Jones, B. C., Cornwell, R. E., of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–343). New York:
Moore, F. R., Feinberg, D. R., . . . & Pitman, R. M. Wiley.
(2006). Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans.
women. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Human Nature, 18(3), 264–271.
Biological Sciences, 273(1583), 135–140. Whitehouse, A. J., Gilani, S. Z., Shafait, F., Mian, A., Tan,
Souza, A. L., Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). D. W., Maybery, M. T., . . . & Eastwood, P. (2015).
Mate preferences in Brazil: Evolved desires and cul- Prenatal testosterone exposure is related to sexually
tural evolution over three decades. Personality and dimorphic facial morphology in adulthood. Proceed-
Individual Differences, 95, 45–49. ings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences, 282(1816):20151351

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen