According to evolutionary theories of human mating, people should feel the most romantic desire toward potential mates who possess reproductively adaptive attributes. Across five person-perception experiments involving staged interviews, we found that men’s and women’s feelings of romantic desire can be manipulated by varying adaptive attributes in a target person. For example, during some interviews, participants were exposed to an experimental confederate exhibiting cues to easy sexual access. Because men’s short-term sexual strategy is based on obtaining high numbers of partners, it was predicted that exposure to a target person suggesting easy sexual access would especially intensify men’s short-term romantic desires. The authors found evidence that targets who exhibited cues to easy sexual access were rated the most desirable by men in the context of short-term mating. Discussion focused on limitations of the current studies and on the importance of invoking methodological pluralism when testing evolutionary theories of romantic desire.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alcock, J. (1993). Animal behavior (5th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
2.
Andersen, B. L. , & Broffitt, B. (1988). Is there a reliable and valid self-report measure of sexual behavior?Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 509-525.
3.
Bailey, J. M. , Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionary relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081-1093.
4.
Berscheid, E. , & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
Bock, G. R. , & Cardew, G. (Eds.). (1997). Characterizing human psychological adaptations. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
6.
Botwin, M. D. , Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107-136.
7.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14.
8.
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
Buss, D. M. , Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.
10.
Buss, D. M. , & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
11.
Clark, C. L. , Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 707-720.
12.
Cronin, H. (1991). The ant and the peacock. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Cutler, W. B. , Friedmann, E., & McCoy, N. L. (1998). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 1-13.
14.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
15.
DeKay, W. T. , & Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual differences, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Psychological Science, 1, 184-189.
16.
Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 267-288). New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Fisher, H. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9, 23-52.
18.
Fisher, W. A. , Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123-151.
19.
Foley, R. (1996). The adaptive legacy of human evolution: A search for the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Evolutionary Anthropology, 5, 194-203.
20.
Gangestad, S. W. , & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 169-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Gangestad, S. W. , Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73-85.
22.
Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23.
Gutierres, S. E. , Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126-1134.
24.
Hassebrauck, M. (1998). The visual process method: A new method to study physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 111-123.
25.
Johnston, V. S. , & Franklin, M. (1993). Is beauty in the eyes of the beholder?Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 183-199.
26.
Kasser, T. , & Sharma, Y. S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational quality, and female’s preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374-377.
27.
Kenrick, D. T. , & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.
28.
Kenrick, D. T. , Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210-217.
29.
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 [Special issue: Biological foundations of personality: Evolution, behavioral genetics, and psycho-physiology]. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-116.
30.
Ketelaar, T. , & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 1-21.
31.
Langlois, J. H. , & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
32.
Low, B. S. (1989). Cross-cultural patterns in the training of children: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 103, 313-319.
33.
Low, B. S. (1998). The evolution of human life histories. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 131-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences, and evolutionary theory. Journal of Communication, 46, 8-31.
35.
Nesse, R. M. , & Williams, G. C. (1994). Why we get sick. New York: Times Books.
36.
Oliver, M. B. , & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 321-333.
37.
O’Sullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men’s and women’s personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33, 159-181.
38.
Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294-1303.
39.
Regan, P. C. , & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 25-37.
40.
Rosenthal, R. , & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
41.
Schmitt, D. P. , & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-enhancement and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204.
42.
Schmitt, D. P. , & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the Big Five?Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 141-177.
43.
Schmitt, D. P. , Shackelford, T. K., Duntley, J., Tooke, W., & Buss, D. M. (in press). The desire for sexual variety as a tool for understanding basic human mating strategies. Manuscript submitted for publication.
44.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of waist-to-hip ratio and female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
45.
Speed, A. , & Gangestad, S. W. (1997). Romantic popularity and mate preferences: A peer-nomination study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 928-935.
46.
Sprecher, S. , McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 387-408.
47.
Sprecher, S. , Regan, P. C., McKinney, K., Maxwell, K., & Wazienski, R. (1997). Preferred level of sexual experience in a date or mate: The merger of two methodologies. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 327-337.
48.
Sprecher, S. , Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074-1080.
49.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
Tooby, J. , & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press.
51.
Townsend, J. M. , & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171-191.
52.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
53.
Walster, E. , Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1971). The efficacy of playing hard-to-get. Journal of Experimental Education, 39, 73-77.
54.
White, S. G. , & Hatcher, C. (1984). Couple complementarity and similarity: A review of the literature. American Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 15-25.
55.
Wiederman, M. W. , & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153-170.
