This series of studies is the first to use conjoint analysis to examine how individuals make trade-offs during mate selection when provided information about a partner’s history of sexual infidelity. Across three studies, participants ranked profiles of potential mates, with each profile varying across five attributes: financial stability, physical attractiveness, sexual fidelity, emotional investment, and similarity. They also rated each attribute separately for importance in an ideal mate. Overall, we found that for a long-term mate, participants prioritized a potential partner’s history of sexual fidelity over other attributes when profiles were ranked conjointly. For a short-term mate, sexual fidelity, physical attractiveness, and financial stability were equally important, and each was more important than emotional investment and similarity. These patterns contrast with participants’ self-reported importance ratings of each individual attribute. Our results are interpreted within the context of previous literature examining how making trade-offs affect mate selection.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of changes. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
2.
BarkowJ. H. (1978). Social norms, the self, and sociobiology: Building on the ideas of A.I. Hallowell. Current Anthropology, 19, 99-103.
3.
BraunM. F.BryanA. (2006). Female waist-to-hip and male waist-to-shoulder ratios as determinants of romantic partner desirability. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 805-819.
4.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
5.
BurrissR. P.WellingL. L. M.PutsD. A. (2011). Men’s attractiveness predicts their preference for female facial femininity when judging for short-term, but not long-term, partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 542-546.
6.
BussD. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.
7.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
8.
BussD. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York, NY: Free Press.
9.
BussD. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(Suppl. 4), 23-29.
10.
BussD. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, NY: Basic Books
11.
BussD. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359-366.
12.
BussD. M.BarnesM. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
13.
BussD. M.HaseltonM. G. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 506-507.
14.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
15.
BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K.KirkpatrickL. A.LarsenR. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491-503.
16.
BuunkB. P.DijkstraP.FetchenhauerD.KenrickD. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271-278.
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
DaviesA. P. C.ShackelfordT. K.HassG. R. (2010). Sex differences in perceptions of benefits and costs of mate poaching. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 441-445.
19.
DuranteK. M.LiN. P. (2009). Oestradiol level and opportunistic mating in women. Biology Letters, 5, 179-182.
20.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. 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, 245-264.
21.
FinkB.GrammerK.ThornhillR. (2001). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 92-99.
22.
FisherA. D.CoronaG.BandiniE.MannucciE.LottiF.BoddiV.. . . MaggiM. (2009). Psychobiological correlates of extramarital affairs and differences between stable and occasional infidelity among men with sexual dysfunctions. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 866-875.
23.
FletcherG. J. O.TitherJ. M.O’LoughlinC.FriesenM.OverallN. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659-672.
24.
GangestadS. W.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644.
25.
GangestadS. W.ThornhillR. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(2), 69-88.
26.
GearyD. C.Byrd-CravenJ. (2004). The evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27-42.
27.
GoetzA. T.ShackelfordT. K. (2009). Sexual coercion in intimate relationships: A comparative analysis of the effects of women’s infidelity and men’s dominance and control. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(2), 226-234.
28.
GustafssonA.HerrmannA.HuberF. (2007). Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In GustafssonA.HerrmannA.HuberF. (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (pp. 3-30). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
29.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
HughesS. M.DispenzaF.GallupG. G. (2004). Ratings of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evolution & Human Behavior, 25, 295-304.
31.
HughesS. M.HarrisonM. A.GallupG. G.Jr. (2002). The sound of symmetry: Voice as a marker of developmental instability. Evolution & Human Behavior, 23, 173-180.
32.
JohnstonV. S.HagelR.FranklinM.FinkB.GrammerK. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone mediated adaptive design. Evolution & Human Behavior, 22, 251-267.
33.
KaighobadiF.ShackelfordT. K.PoppD.MoyerR. M.BatesV. M.LiddleJ. R. (2009). Perceived risk of female infidelity moderates the relationship between men’s personality and partner-directed violence. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 1033-1039.
34.
KenrickD. T.GrothG. E.TrostM. R.SadallaE. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.
35.
KenrickD. T.LiN. P.ButnerJ. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110, 3-28.
36.
KurzbanR.WeedenJ. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution & Human Behavior, 26, 227-244.
37.
LentonA. P.FasoloB.ToddP. M. (2009). The relationship between number of potential mates and mating skew in humans. Animal Behaviour, 77, 55-60.
38.
LentonA. P.StewartA. (2008). Changing her ways: Number of options and mate standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 501-511.
39.
LiN. 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, 528-535.
40.
LiN. P. (2008). Intelligent priorities: Adaptive long- and short-term mate preferences. In GeherG.MillerG. (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 105-119). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
41.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
42.
LiN. P.KenrickD. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468-489.
43.
LiN. P.ValentineK. A.PatelL. (2011). Mate preferences in the U.S. and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 291-294.
44.
LiN. P.YongJ. C.TovW.SngO.FletcherG. J. O.ValentineK. A.. . . BallietD. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757-776.
45.
LittleA. C.JonesB. C.Penton-VoakI. S.BurtD. M.PerrettD. I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1496), 1095-1100.
46.
LohrkeF. T.HollowayB. B.WoolleyT. W. (2010). Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research: A review and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 16-30.
47.
LucasT. W.WendorfC. A.ImamogluO. E. (2004). Marital satisfaction in four cultures as a function of homogamy, male dominance, and female attractiveness. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6, 97-130.
48.
LuceR. D.TukeyJ. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1-27.
49.
Lutz-ZoisC. J.BradleyA. C.MihalikJ. L.Moorman-EaversE. R. (2006). Perceived similarity and relationship success among dating couples: An idiographic approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 865-880.
50.
MattsP. J.FinkB.GrammerK.BurquestM. (2007). Color homogeneity and visual perception of age, health, and attractiveness of female facial skin. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 57, 977-984.
51.
McKibbinW. F.StarrattV. G.ShackelfordT. K.GoetzA. T. (2011). Perceived risk of female infidelity moderates the relationship between objective risk of female infidelity and sexual coercion in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125(3), 370-373.
52.
McMullenJ.ShepherdD. (2006). Encouraging consensus-challenging research in universities. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1643-1669.
53.
MinerviniB. P.McAndrewF. T. (2006). The mating strategies and mate preferences of mail order brides. Cross-Cultural Research, 40, 111-129.
54.
O’ConnorJ. J. M.PisanskiK.TigueC. C.FraccaroP. J.FeinbergD. R. (2014). Perceptions of infidelity risk predict women’s preferences for low male voice pitch in short-term over long-term relationship contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 73-77.
55.
O’ConnorJ. J. M.ReD. E.FeinbergD. R. (2011). Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 64-78.
56.
RhodesG.MorleyG.SimmonsL. W. (2013). Women can judge sexual unfaithfulness from unfamiliar men’s faces. Biological Letters, 9, 1-6.
57.
SagarinB. J.MartinA. L.CoutinhoS. A.EdlundJ. E.PatelL.SkowronskiJ. J.ZengelB. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: Meta-analytic examination. Evolution & Human Behavior, 33, 595-614.
58.
ScheibJ. E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 8, 371-389.
59.
ScheibJ. E.GangestadS. W.ThornhillR. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues to good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Sciences, 266, 1913-1917.
60.
SchmittD. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality, 18, 301-319.
61.
SchmittD. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247-311.
62.
SchmittD. P.BussD. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204.
63.
SchmittD. P.BussD. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 894-917.
64.
SchmittD. P.JonasonP. K.ByerleyG. J.FloresS. D.IllbeckB. E.O’LearyK. N.QudratA. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies reveal old truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 135-139.
65.
SchützwohlA. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 288-299.
66.
SchützwohlA.KochS. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues to sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 249-257.
67.
ShackelfordT. K.BussD. M. (1997). Cues to infidelity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1034-1045.
68.
ShackelfordT. K.SchmittD. P.BussD. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447-458.
69.
ShepherdD.ZacharakisA. (1997). Conjoint analysis: A window of opportunity for entrepreneurship research. In KatzK.BrockhausR. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (pp. 203-248). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
70.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
71.
StarrattV. G.McKibbinW. F.ShackelfordT. K. (2013). Experimental manipulation of psychological mechanisms responsive to female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 59-62.
72.
StoneE. A.ShackelfordT. K.BussD. M. (2007). Sex ratio and mate preferences: A cross-cultural investigation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 288-296.
73.
SymonsD. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
ThornhillR.GangestadS. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution & Human Behavior, 27, 131-144.
76.
ToddP. M.PlaceS. S.BowersR. I. (2012). Simple heuristics for mate choice decisions. In KreugerJ. I. (Ed.), Social judgment and decision making (pp. 193-207). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
77.
TriversR. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American zoologist, 14(1), 249-264.
78.
TyburJ. M.LiebermanD.GriskeviciusV. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103-122.
79.
WadeT. J. (2000). Evolutionary theory and self-perception: Sex differences in body esteem predictors of self-perceived physical and sexual attractiveness, and self-esteem. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 36-45.
80.
WadeT. J. (2003). Evolutionary theory and African American self-perception: Sex differences in body esteem predictors of physical and sexual attractiveness, and self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 123-141.
81.
WadeT. J.BrownK. (2012). Mate expulsion and sexual conflict. In ShackelfordT.GoetzA., (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans (pp. 315-327). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
82.
WayneforthD. (2001). Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically attractive men. Human Nature, 12, 207-219.
83.
WilsonT. D.DunnD. S. (1986). Effects of introspection on attitude–behavior consistency: Analyzing reasons versus focusing on feelings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 249-263.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
