Choosing a mate is perhaps the most important decision a sexually reproducing organism makes in its lifetime. And yet, psychologists lack a precise description of human mate choice, despite sustained attention from several theoretical perspectives. Here, I argue this limited progress owes to the complexity of mate choice and describe a new modeling approach, called “couple simulation,” designed to compare models of mate choice by challenging them to reproduce real couples within simulated mating markets. I present proof-of-concept simulations that demonstrate couple simulation can identify a population’s true model of mate choice. Furthermore, I apply couple simulation to two samples of real couples and find that the method (a) successfully reconstructs real-world couples, (b) discriminates between models of mate choice, and (c) predicts a wide range of dimensions of relationship quality. Collectively, these results provide evidence that couple simulation offers a framework useful for evaluating theories of human mate choice.
AielloL. C.KeyC. (2002). Energetic consequences of being a Homo erectus female. American Journal of Human Biology, 14(5), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.10069
2.
AmbadyN.RosenthalR. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441.
3.
AntonovicsK.TownR. (2004). Are all the good men married? Uncovering the sources of the marital wage premium. American Economic Review, 94(2), 317–321.
BeckageN.ToddP. M.PenkeL.AsendorpfJ. B. (2009). Testing sequential patterns in human mate choice using speed dating. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, 2365–2370.
6.
BorkenauP.MauerN.RiemannR.SpinathF. M.AngleitnerA. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 599–614.
7.
BossardJ. H. (1932). Residential propinquity as a factor in marriage selection. American Journal of Sociology, 38(2), 219–224.
8.
BrandnerJ. L.BraseG. L.HuxmanS. A. J. (2020). “Weighting” to find the right person: Compensatory trait integrating versus alternative models to assess mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.05.001
9.
BredowC. A.HamesN. (2019). Steadfast standards or fluctuating fancies? Stability and change in people’s mate criteria over 27 months. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(5), 671–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218794643
10.
BryanA. D.WebsterG. D.MahaffeyA. L. (2011). The big, the rich, and the powerful: Physical, financial, and social dimensions of dominance in mating and attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210395604
11.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.
12.
BussD. M.GoetzC.DuntleyJ. D.AsaoK.Conroy-BeamD. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.022
13.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
14.
ByrneD.NelsonD. (1965). Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 659–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022073
15.
ChangL.WangY.ShackelfordT. K.BussD. M. (2011). Chinese mate preferences: Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 678–683.
16.
CohenS. E.ToddP. M.KruschkeJ. K.GarciaJ. R.FisherH. E. (2019). Singles of both sexes expedite reproduction: Shifts in sexual-timing strategies before and after the typical age of female menopause. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(6), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.08.001
17.
CondonJ. W.CranoW. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 789–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.789
18.
Conroy-BeamD. (2018). Euclidean mate value and power of choice on the mating market. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217739262
19.
Conroy-BeamD.BussD. M. (2016). 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), Article e0156078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156078
20.
Conroy-BeamD.BussD. M. (2017). Euclidean distances discriminatively predict short-term and long-term attraction to potential mates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 442–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.04.004
Conroy-BeamD.GoetzC. D.BussD. M. (2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: Mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies?Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 440–448. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513816300447
23.
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1995). From function to structure: The role of evolutionary biology and computational theories in cognitive neuroscience. In The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1199–1210). MIT Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-98810-079
24.
DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C.CrawfordJ. R.WellingL. L. M.LittleA. 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. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2184
DePauloB. M.MorrisW. L. (2005). Singles in society and in science. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2–3), 57–83.
27.
de Sousa CamposL.OttaE.de Oliveira SiqueiraJ. (2002). Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analyses and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(5), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00099-5
28.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2019). Best practices for testing the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 167–181.
29.
EastwickP. W.LuchiesL. B.FinkelE. J.HuntL. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432
30.
EllisB. J.KelleyH. H. (1999). The pairing game: A classroom demonstration of the matching phenomenon. Teaching of Psychology, 26(2), 118–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2602_8
31.
EllisonP. T. (2009). On fertile ground: A natural history of human reproduction. Harvard University Press.
32.
FletcherG.OverallN. C.CampbellL. (2020). Reconsidering “best practices” for testing the ideal standards model: A response to Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46, 1581–1595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220910323
33.
FletcherG.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102–105.
34.
FletcherG.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
35.
FletcherG.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89.
36.
FrankenhuisW. E.WalasekN. (2020). Modeling the evolution of sensitive periods. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 41, 100715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100715
37.
FrenchR. M.KusE. T. (2008). KAMA: A temperature-driven model of mate choice using dynamic partner representations. Adaptive Behavior, 16(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712307087598
38.
GaleD.ShapleyL. S. (1962). College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, 69(1), 9–15.
39.
GerlachT. M.ArslanR. C.SchultzeT.ReinhardS. K.PenkeL. (2019). Predictive validity and adjustment of ideal partner preferences across the transition into romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000170
40.
GigerenzerG.ToddP. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In GigerenzerG.ToddP. M., & ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3–34). Oxford University Press.
41.
GoetzC. D.PillsworthE. G.BussD. M.Conroy-BeamD. (2019). Evolutionary mismatch in mating. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02709
42.
GrammerK.ThornhillR. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233
43.
GunawardenaJ. (2014). Models in biology: “Accurate descriptions of our pathetic thinking.”BMC Biology, 12(1), Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-12-29
44.
HatfieldE.SprecherS. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202219502600613
HillR. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.
47.
HillsT.ToddP. (2008). Population heterogeneity and individual differences in an assortative agent-based marriage and divorce model (madam) using search with relaxing expectations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(4), 5.
48.
HitschG. J.HortaçsuA.ArielyD. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130–163. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.130
49.
Holt-LunstadJ.SmithT. B.LaytonJ. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), Article e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
50.
HughesS. M.GallupG. G. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00149-6
JacksonJ. C.RandD.LewisK.NortonM. I.GrayK. (2017). Agent-Based Modeling: A Guide for Social Psychologists. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617691100
53.
JoelS.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1478–1489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714580
54.
JonasonP. K.GarciaJ. R.WebsterG. D.LiN. P.FisherH. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1697–1711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215609064
55.
JonesB. C.LittleA. C.Penton-VoakI. S.TiddemanB. P.BurtD. M.PerrettD. I. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgements of apparent health: Support for a “good genes” explanation of the attractiveness–symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(6), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00083-6
56.
KalickS. M.HamiltonT. E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 673–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.673
57.
KambleS.ShackelfordT. K.PhamM.BussD. M. (2014). Indian mate preferences: Continuity, sex differences, and cultural change across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 150–155.
58.
KaplanH.HillK.HurtadoA. M.LancasterJ. (2001). The embodied capital theory of human evolution. In P. T. Ellison(Ed.), Reproductive ecology and human evolution (pp. 293–317). Aldine de Gruyter.
KelleyH. H. (1984). The theoretical description of interdependence by means of transition lists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 956–982. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.956
61.
KennyD. A.La VoieL. (1982). Reciprocity of interpersonal attraction: A confirmed hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(1), 54–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033675
62.
KenrickD. T.KeefeR. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00067595
63.
KenrickD. T.LiN. P.ButnerJ. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110(1), 3–28.
64.
KeyC.AielloL. C. (2000). A prisoner’s dilemma model of the evolution of paternal care. Folia Primatologica, 71(1–2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000021732
65.
KnittelA. K.RioloR. L.SnowR. C. (2011). Development and evaluation of an agent-based model of sexual partnership. Adaptive Behavior, 19(6), 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712311422611
66.
KuzawaC. W.ChuganiH. T.GrossmanL. I.LipovichL.MuzikO.HofP. R.WildmanD. E.SherwoodC. C.LeonardW. R.LangeN. (2014). Metabolic costs and evolutionary implications of human brain development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(36), 13010–13015. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323099111
67.
Latty-MannH.DavisK. E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice: Preference and actuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596131001
68.
LewisD. M. G.RussellE. M.Al-ShawafL.BussD. M. (2015). Lumbar curvature: A previously undiscovered standard of attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.007
69.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
70.
LiN. P.MeltzerA. L. (2015). The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: Reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 89–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000036
71.
LiN. P.YongJ. C.TovW.SngO. O. J.ValentineK. A.JiangY. F.BallietD. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033777
72.
LiebermanD.ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445(7129), 727–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05510
73.
LittleA. C.HancockP. J. B. (2002). The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male facial attractiveness. British Journal of Psychology, 93(Pt 4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602761381349
74.
LongM. L.-W.CampbellA. (2015). Female mate choice: A comparison between accept-the-best and reject-the-worst strategies in sequential decision making. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1474704915594553. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915594553
75.
LukaszewskiA. W.RoneyJ. R. (2010). Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.008
76.
LykkenD. T.TellegenA. (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.
77.
MarloweF. (1999). Male care and mating effort among Hadza Foragers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46(1), 57–64.
78.
MarloweF. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15(4), 365–376.
79.
MarrD. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information (Vol. 2). Henry Holt.
80.
MillerG. F.ToddP. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(5), 190–198.
81.
MogilskiJ. K.WadeT. J.WellingL. L. M. (2014). Prioritization of potential mates’ history of sexual fidelity during a conjoint ranking task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 884–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529798
82.
MurrayS. L.HolmesJ. G.CollinsN. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641
83.
NettleD.FrankenhuisW. E. (2019). The evolution of life-history theory: A bibliometric analysis of an interdisciplinary research area. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1899), 20190040. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0040
84.
NewcombT.SvehlaG. (1937). Intra-family relationships in attitude. Sociometry, 1(1/2), 180–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785265
85.
NortonR. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(1), 141–151.
86.
PapertS. A. (1966). The summer vision project. AIM-100. Artificial Intellignece Lab, Massachussets Institute of Technology.
87.
PerillouxH. K.WebsterG. D.GaulinS. J. C. (2010). Signals of genetic quality and maternal investment capacity: The dynamic effects of fluctuating asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio on men’s ratings of women’s attractiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609349514
88.
PerrettD. I.LeeK. J.Penton-VoakI.RowlandD.YoshikawaS.BurtD. M.HenziS. P.CastlesD. L.AkamatsuS. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394(6696), 884–887. https://doi.org/10.1038/29772
RobinaughD.HaslbeckJ. M. B.RyanO.FriedE. I.WaldorpL. (2020). Invisible hands and fine calipers: A call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ugz7y
91.
RoblesT. F.SlatcherR. B.TrombelloJ. M.McGinnM. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859
92.
RosenbaumM. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1156–1166.
93.
RosenbluethA.WienerN.BigelowJ. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10(1), 18–24.
94.
RusbultC. E. (2003). Interdependence in close relationships. In FletcherG. J. O.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 357–387). Wiley.
95.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387.
96.
SchmittD. P. (2014). On the proper functions of human mate preference adaptations: Comment on Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, and Hunt (2014). Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 666–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036225
97.
ShackelfordT. K.BussD. M. (1997). Marital satisfaction in evolutionary psychological perspective. In SternbergR. J.HojjatM. (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 7–25). Guilford Press.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293
SmaldinoP. E. (2017). Models are stupid, and we need more of them. In VallacherR. R.ReadS. J.NowakA. (Eds.), Computational social psychology (pp. 311–331). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173726-14
SmithE. R.ConreyF. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294789
105.
SouzaA. L.Conroy-BeamD.BussD. M. (2016). Mate preferences in Brazil: Evolved desires and cultural evolution over three decades. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.053
106.
StearnsS. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press.
107.
SternbergR. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–335.
108.
Stewart-WilliamsS.ThomasA. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences?Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899
109.
SugiyamaL. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00083-7
110.
SugiyamaL. S. (2015). Physical attractiveness: An adaptationist perspective. In BussD. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 317–384). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych112
ToddP. M.MillerG. F. (1999). From pride and prejudice to persuasion: Satisficing in mate search. In GigerenzerG.ToddP. M., & ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 287–308). Oxford University Press.
115.
ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(4–5), 375–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(90)90017-Z
116.
ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (1996). Friendship and the banker’s paradox: Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for altruism. Proceedings of the British Academy, 88, 119–144.
117.
TriversR. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In DarwinC. (Ed.), Sexual selection & the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Aldine de Gruyter.
118.
ValeggiaC.EllisonP. T. (2009). Interactions between metabolic and reproductive functions in the resumption of postpartum fecundity. American Journal of Human Biology, 21(4), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20907
119.
WalsterE.WalsterG. W.PiliavinJ.SchmidtL. (1973). “Playing hard to get”: Understanding an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034234
120.
WalterK. V.Conroy-BeamD.BussD. M.AsaoK.SorokowskaA.SorokowskiP.AavikT.AkelloG.AlhabahbaM. M.AlmC.AmjadN.AnjumA.AtamaC. S.Atamtürk DuyarD.AyebareR.BatresC.BendixenM.BensafiaA.BizumicB.ZupančičM. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154
121.
WeiM.RussellD. W.MallinckrodtB.VogelD. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041
122.
WiedermanM. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(5), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(93)90003-Z
123.
WilenskyU.RandW. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling: Modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. MIT Press.
124.
WoodD.BrumbaughC. C. (2009). Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1226–1244. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/10.1037/a0015300
125.
XieY.ChengS.ZhouX. (2015). Assortative mating without assortative preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(19), 5974–5978. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504811112
126.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2Pt2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
127.
ZhangL.LeeA. J.DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C. (2019). Are sex differences in preferences for physical attractiveness and good earning capacity in potential mates smaller in countries with greater gender equality?Evolutionary Psychology, 17(2), 1474704919852921. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919852921
128.
ZietschB. P.SidariM. J. (2019). A critique of life history approaches to human trait covariation. Evolution and Human Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.05.007
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.
