Literature DB >> 16594832

Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why.

Norman P Li1, Douglas T Kenrick.   

Abstract

Are there sex differences in criteria for sexual relationships? The answer depends on what question a researcher asks. Data suggest that, whereas the sexes differ in whether they will enter short-term sexual relationships, they are more similar in what they prioritize in partners for such relationships. However, additional data and context of other findings and theory suggest different underlying reasons. In Studies 1 and 2, men and women were given varying "mate budgets" to design short-term mates and were asked whether they would actually mate with constructed partners. Study 3 used a mate-screening paradigm. Whereas women have been found to prioritize status in long-term mates, they instead (like men) prioritize physical attractiveness much like an economic necessity in short-term mates. Both sexes also show evidence of favoring well-rounded long- and short-term mates when given the chance. In Studies 4 and 5, participants report reasons for having casual sex and what they find physically attractive. For women, results generally support a good genes account of short-term mating, as per strategic pluralism theory (S. W. Gangestad & J. A. Simpson, 2000). Discussion addresses broader theoretical implications for mate preference, and the link between method and theory in examining social decision processes. Copyright (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16594832     DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0022-3514


  46 in total

1.  Physical attractiveness and the accumulation of social and human capital in adolescence and young adulthood: assets and distractions.

Authors:  Rachel A Gordon; Robert Crosnoe; Xue Wang
Journal:  Monogr Soc Res Child Dev       Date:  2013-12

2.  Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction.

Authors:  Andrea L Meltzer; James K McNulty; Grace L Jackson; Benjamin R Karney
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2013-10-14

3.  Predicting Romantic Interest at Zero Acquaintance: Evidence of Sex Differences in Trait Perception but Not in Predictors of Interest.

Authors:  Sally G Olderbak; Frederic Malter; Pedro Sofio Abril Wolf; Daniel N Jones; Aurelio José Figueredo
Journal:  Eur J Pers       Date:  2017-01-06

4.  Cooperation in lovers: An fNIRS-based hyperscanning study.

Authors:  Yafeng Pan; Xiaojun Cheng; Zhenxin Zhang; Xianchun Li; Yi Hu
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review.

Authors:  Justin R Garcia; Chris Reiber; Sean G Massey; Ann M Merriwether
Journal:  Rev Gen Psychol       Date:  2012-06-01

6.  The clock is ticking: the sound of a ticking clock speeds up women's attitudes on reproductive timing.

Authors:  Justin H Moss; Jon K Maner
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2014-09

7.  Young Adult Casual Sexual Behavior: Life Course Specific Motivations and Consequences.

Authors:  Heidi A Lyons; Wendy D Manning; Monica A Longmore; Peggy C Giordano
Journal:  Sociol Perspect       Date:  2014-03-01

8.  Sex differences in regret: all for love or some for lust?

Authors:  Neal J Roese; Ginger L Pennington; Jill Coleman; Maria Janicki; Norman P Li; Douglas T Kenrick
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2006-06

9.  I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men.

Authors:  Uriah S Anderson; Elaine F Perea; D Vaughn Becker; Joshua M Ackerman; Jenessa R Shapiro; Steven L Neuberg; Douglas T Kenrick
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2010-09

10.  Situational and relational factors associated with coitus during vaginal bleeding among adolescent women.

Authors:  Devon J Hensel; J Dennis Fortenberry; Donald P Orr
Journal:  J Sex Res       Date:  2007-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.