Short-Term and Long-Term Mating Strategies Show Distinct Patterns of Attraction to Dominance and Prestige

Abstract

People generally covet high-rank romantic partners. Yet, the multidimensional strategies of attaining social rank (dominance and prestige) and sociosexuality (long-term and short-term mating orientations) leave open the question of which strategies for attaining social rank are coveted, and by whom. We provide greater resolution into understanding attraction to social rank strategies by demonstrating that people with higher long-term mating orientations show an attraction to prestige strategists, but an aversion to dominance strategists, whereas people with higher short-term mating orientations show increased attraction to people who pursue high rank in the form of both dominance and prestige. These effects emerged for men and women across studies measuring partner preferences through personality traits (Study 1) and facial photographs (Study 2). Mate attraction to social rank strategies thus differs by people’s mating orientation and the type of social rank strategy, supporting our preregistered hypotheses.

Keywords

social status mating orientation partner preferences

People desire high-ranking individuals as potential mates due to their increased attention, social influence, access to resources, and the deference they receive from others (Brown & Maurer, 1986; Cheng et al., 2013; Foulsham et al., 2010; Von Rueden et al., 2011). Within the Ideal Standards Model (Fletcher et al., 1999; Simpson et al., 2001), social rank forms a core dimension of desire for romantic partners, guiding partner preferences across cultures, gender, and sexual orientation (Bailey et al., 1997; Buss et al., 2001; Vacharkulksemsuk et al., 2016; Varangis et al., 2012; Von Rueden & Jaeggi, 2016). Indeed, large-scale multinational studies of industrialized and nonindustrial populations demonstrate that social rank supports mate preferences and reproductive success (Buss, 1989; Shackelford et al., 2005; Von Rueden et al., 2011; Von Rueden & Jaeggi, 2016).

Individuals pursue social rank via at least two distinct strategies. The first, prestige, involves demonstrating knowledge and expertise to ascend prestige hierarchies (i.e., hierarchies characterized by many group members’ freely afforded deference). The second, dominance, involves using aggression and intimidation to ascend dominance hierarchies (i.e., hierarchies in which a few group members aggressively or coercively attain social rank; Cheng et al., 2013; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Maner, 2017; Maner & Case, 2016). Both strategies achieve increased attention, social influence, and access to resources, thereby increasing perceptions of agency, leadership, power, and influence (Cheng et al., 2013; Witkower et al., 2022, 2024). Yet, given that these strategies have very different behavioral, emotional, interpersonal, and psychological profiles, this distinction between dominance and prestige motivates the question of which strategy for attaining social rank makes a mate attractive.

Answering this question first requires understanding how and why people seek potential mates. Much as humans employ distinct strategies for attaining social rank, they also possess distinct orientations for selecting mates. Sexual Strategy Theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) posits that child-rearing makes sexual reproduction a costly, highly consequential process. People thus orient themselves toward selecting mates via a long-term mating orientation (characterized by seeking “good parents” for biparental investment) and short-term mating orientation (characterized by seeking highly attractive short-term partners, desirable for brief sexual encounters due to their perceived genetic fitness).

Given these distinctions in mating orientations (long-term and short-term) and social rank’s two forms (dominance and prestige), understanding attraction to high-ranking individuals requires greater resolution. Specifically, how does each mating orientation support attraction to people who deploy dominance versus prestige to attain social rank?

Mating Orientation and Social-Rank Preference

Short-Term Mate Seekers

Individuals with short-term mating orientations (i.e., who prioritize genetic fitness over long-term investment in mate selection; Beall & Schaller, 2019; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Simpson & Gangestad, 1992) may be drawn to individuals who try to ascend the hierarchy via both prestige and dominance. Prestigious individuals tend to be highly intelligent (e.g., Cheng et al., 2010), which can afford offspring with an enhanced likelihood of survival and success (e.g., Ceci & Williams, 1997; Čukić et al., 2017). Dominant individuals, in contrast, tend to evince physical strength and fitness to afford the costs associated with their aggressive behavior (Archer & Thanzami, 2007; Sell et al., 2009; Toscano et al., 2014), potentially conferring benefits to offspring inheriting their genes and attracting mates (including males and females; Durkee et al., 2019; Li & Kenrick, 2006). We therefore hypothesize that people with short-term mating orientations will find both dominance- and prestige-strategists attractive.

Long-Term Mate Seekers

Individuals with long-term mating orientations may be more attracted to individuals who try to ascend the hierarchy through prestige rather than dominance, however. Prestigious individuals are, by definition, valued and admired members of society whose warm and nurturant traits (Cheng et al., 2010) likely endow them with a large network of social and material resources that increase the economic and community support of family and offspring. People with long-term mating orientations may therefore find prestigious individuals attractive because they prioritize traits indicating commitment and long-term investment (Beall & Schaller, 2019; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Simpson & Gangestad, 1992).

Indeed, dominant individuals (who tend to exhibit aggressive, unethical, uncooperative, arrogant, and selfish behaviors more frequently than their nondominant counterparts) may be perceived as less desirable partners for nurturant domestic relationships (Cheng et al., 2010; Ketterman & Maner, 2021; Suessenbach et al., 2019; Tracy et al., 2020). Dominant individuals also act possessively in long-term partnerships (using jealousy and manipulation to coerce relationship commitment; Conlon, 2019) and may engage in more physical abuse and infidelity, given their tendency toward aggressive and antisocial behavior (e.g., Cheng et al., 2010). Individuals may therefore expect dominant mates to apply their dominant tendencies toward them; as such, we expect that people with long-term mating orientations will perceive dominant mates as unattractive.

Critically, these distinctions suggest that people do not seek those who pursue high rank generically. Instead, we hypothesize that individuals with long-term mating orientations (but not short-term mating orientations) will show an aversion to dominant mates, but an attraction to prestigious mates.

The Current Research

We thus contend that pursuing social rank is not inherently attractive in a potential mate but, rather, that attraction hinges on the strategy for gaining social rank and the mate-seeker’s mating orientation. Specifically, we hypothesize that people with greater short-term mating orientations will find both prestigious and dominant mates attractive, whereas people with greater long-term mating orientations will find prestigious mates attractive but dominant mates aversive. Notably, although women normally express long-term mating orientation more than men do, both men and women can be long- and short-term mating oriented, and both men and women seek social rank in long-term mates (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006). We therefore expect that the hypothesized pattern of results will occur for both men and women.

Study 1

We first tested whether individuals with short-term and long-term mating orientations diverge in attraction to dominance and prestige. Participants completed a mating orientation measure before rating the desirability of several traits characterizing dominance and prestige in a person of their desired sex.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 1,199 American Mechanical Turk Workers (59% male, 41% female; 78% White/Caucasian, 6% Black/African American, 6% East Asian, 4% Hispanic/Latino, 6% other; M_age= 36.11 years, SD = 11.29, range = 19–74) plus 472 individuals excluded from analysis for failing an attention-check question (28%). A power analysis using G*Power indicated that a sample size of 255 would provide approximately 90% power to detect a slope of .20, with alpha set at .05, and all SDs set to 1. However, as specified in our preregistration, we collected data from a much larger sample size to maximize power, and afford statistical power for post hoc exploratory analyses.

Procedure

To measure short-term and long-term mating orientations, participants first completed items from the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (Jackson & Kirkpatrick, 2007), which includes 10 items (two reverse-coded) assessing short-term mating orientation (α = .88, $\bar{r}$ _inter-item = .40; e.g., “Sex without love is OK”) and 10 items (four reverse-coded) assessing long-term mating orientation (α = .81, $\bar{r}$ _inter-item = .33; e.g., “I hope to have a romantic relationship that lasts the rest of my life”). Participants rated all 20 items in random order from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

They then completed versions of the shortened Dominance and Prestige scales (see Cheng et al., 2010; Witkower et al., 2022) adapted to measure partner attraction instead of self-reported dominance and prestige. Specifically, participants responded to the stub “How attracted are you to a person who . . .” followed by eight completion options: four measuring prestige preference (α = .89, $\bar{r}$ _inter-item = .32; e.g., “is considered an expert on some matters?”) and four measuring dominance preference (α = .65, $\bar{r}$ _inter-item = .67; e.g., “who is willing to use aggressive tactics to get their way?”). Participants rated all eight items in random order from 1 (very unattracted) to 7 (very attracted) interspersed with 10 filler items (which measured agency, communion, leadership, and more; see SOM). We selected these measures based on their demonstrated internal and test–retest reliability, and convergent and divergent construct validity (Cheng et al., 2010; Witkower et al., 2019, 2022).¹ Finally, participants completed a demographics questionnaire and exploratory measures included for questions unrelated to the current investigation before debriefing.

Open Science and Transparency

We preregistered our hypothesis that short-term mating strategists will prefer both dominant and prestigious strategists, whereas long-term mating strategists will prefer prestigious but not dominant strategists (preregistration: https://osf.io/m354v; Data and R code: https://osf.io/45qwj). We administered exploratory measures at the end of the study in which participants self-reported their own levels of dominance and prestige (Cheng et al., 2010), agency and communion (Wiggins, 1979), and leadership (Witkower et al., 2022). Importantly, these measures fall outside of the scope of the current investigation and were administered only after participants responded to all preregistered measures to ensure that they did not influence participants’ responses.

Results

We constructed linear models predicting attraction to either dominance or prestige from both short-term and long-term mating orientations, standardizing all continuous variables prior to entry into the model.² As hypothesized, long-term mating orientation positively predicted attraction to prestige, β = .30, t(1196) = 9.67, p < .001, but negatively predicted attraction to dominance, β = −.35, t(1196) = −13.90, p < .001; and short-term mating orientation positively predicted attraction to both dominance, β = .41, t(1196) = 16.26, p < .001, and prestige, β = .31, t(1196) = 9.94, p < .001 (Figures 1 and 2); see Table 1 for bivariate correlations.

Figure 1

Relations Between Mating Orientation and Attraction to Prestige and Dominance in Study 1

Figure 2

Adjusted Associations Between Short-Term (Left) and Long-Term (Right) Mating Orientation and Attraction to Prestige and Dominance in Study 1

Table 1

Bivariate Correlations in Study 1

Variable	STMO	LTMO	Dominance attraction	Prestige attraction	Participant gender
STMO	—
LTMO	−.49***	—
Dominance attraction	.58***	−.55***	—
Prestige attraction	.16***	.15***	.25***	—
Participant gender	−.27***	.22***	−.20***	.03	—

Note: STMO = Short-term mating orientation; LTMO = Long-term mating orientation. Participant gender (0 = man, 1 = woman).

***

p≤ .001.

To explore whether these results varied by participant gender, we constructed two multiple regression models again predicting attraction to dominance and prestige. Each model included long-term mating orientation, short-term mating orientation, participant gender (dummy coded: 0 = male, 1 = female), and two interaction terms: Participant Gender × Long-Term Mating Orientation and Participant Gender × Short-Term Mating Orientation; all continuous variables were standardized prior to entry into the model. When significant interactions emerged, we calculated simple slopes depicting the conditional effects for men and women.

First, analyzing attraction to dominance, a short-term mating orientation × participant gender interaction emerged, β = .12, t(1193) = 2.41, p = .02; men’s short-term mating orientation positively related to attraction to dominance, β = .33, t(1193) = 8.66, p < .001, and this association was slightly stronger for women, β = .45, t(1193) = 12.71, p < .001. The relation between long-term mating orientation and decreased attraction to dominance did not vary by gender, β = −.07, t(1193) = −1.46,p = .15. Overall, men and women did not differ in attraction to dominance after adjusting for their short-term and long-term mating orientations, β = .04, t(1193) = 0.91,p = .36. Thus, the results supported the hypotheses.

Next, analyzing attraction to prestige, no short-term mating × participant gender interaction emerged, β = −.04, t(1193) = −0.56, p = .58. However, a long-term mating orientation × participant gender interaction emerged, β = .23, t(1193) = −3.59, p < .001, such that men with a greater long-term mating orientation were more attracted to prestige, β = .19, t(1193) = 4.30, p < .001, and this association was slightly stronger for women, β = .41, t(1193) = 9.00, p < .001. Overall, men and women did not differ in their attraction to prestige after adjusting for their short-term and long-term mating orientations, β = −.10, t(1193) = −1.76, p = .08.

As a final exploratory analysis, we tested whether people who prefer long-term versus short-term mating show attraction to prestigious versus dominant mates by calculating difference scores between long-term and short-term mating orientation (i.e., higher numbers indicate greater preference for long-term over short-term mating) and difference scores between attraction to prestige and attraction to dominance (i.e., higher numbers indicate greater preference for prestige over dominance). A linear model showed a strong association indicating more attraction to prestigious (dominant) mates among individuals who prefer long-term (short-term) mating, β = .64, t(1197) = 28.48,p < .001. Participant gender moderated this association in a follow-up model, β = .24, t(1195) = 4.98, p < .001 (Figure 3): Although men who prefer long-term mates were more attracted to prestigious mates, β = .48, t(1195) = 12.91 p < .001, the association was stronger for women, β = .72, t(1195) = 24.36, p < .001. Men and women did not differ in attraction to prestigious mates when accounting for mating orientation, β = .08, t(1195) = 0.84, p = .40.

Figure 3

Exploratory Interaction Between Gender and Preferences for Long-Term (vs. Short-Term) Mating Orientation in Prestige (vs. Dominance) Preferences

Discussion

Consistent with our hypotheses, individuals with a greater short-term mating orientation showed increased attraction to both prestige and dominance, whereas individuals with a greater long-term mating orientation showed greater attraction to prestige but decreased attraction to dominance. Individuals with a preference for long-term mating (relative to short-term mating) showed an increase in attraction to prestige (relative to dominance).

Although we primarily focused on examining how distinct mating orientations predict attraction to alternative strategies for attaining social rank, several of the findings revealed important gender differences that qualify these associations. For example, short-term mating orientation more strongly related to preferences for dominance among women than men, as did the association between long-term mating orientation and preferences for prestige. In both cases, women with stronger mating orientations express clearer or more consistent preferences for traits that align with their relational goals. Despite these interactions, the overall pattern of results supported our preregistered hypothesis that both men and women with short-term mating orientations prefer dominant and prestigious mates, whereas people oriented toward long-term mating prefer prestigious but not dominant individuals.

Study 2a

People often form mate preferences without access to trait information, instead selecting potential mates based on physical appearance. In Studies 2a and 2b, we test whether the pattern of preferences observed in Study 1 (also see Study S1 in SOM) extends to preferences based solely on facial appearance. Given that no existing datasets provide computationally derived facial representations of prestige, we focus exclusively on preferences for dominant faces. We hypothesize that the same pattern identified in Study 1 will emerge: individuals with a higher short-term mating orientation will be more attracted to dominant faces, whereas those with a higher long-term mating orientation will be less attracted to dominant faces.

Method

Procedure

Participants completed the same demographics questionnaire and measures of short-term (α = .90) and long-term (α = .85) mating orientation used above. Following this, participants completed five experimental trials during which they viewed facial photographs side-by-side, instructed to “select the person who is more attractive.” Each trial included a neutral forward-facing facial photograph of a White opposite-gender target alongside an altered version of that same photograph manipulated to appear highly dominant (all stimuli retrieved from Oh et al., 2020; see Figure 4). Specifically, neutral facial images were transformed using a data-driven computational model of face impressions to visualize holistic changes in facial appearance that occur for faces perceived as highly dominant (see Oh et al., 2020).³ It is important to note that in Oh et al. (2020), participants were not given a specific definition of dominance; they simply rated their perception of “dominance” in faces. As a result, the current study also evaluates whether our findings hold true across varying, participant-defined interpretations of dominance. Participants’ selections (0 = original, 1 = dominant) were averaged across all trials to create composite scores wherein higher numbers indicate greater attraction to dominant faces. The order of target identities and placement of the photographs within each trial (i.e., dominant vs. original) were randomized for each participant.

Figure 4

Examples of Original (Left) and Dominant (Right) Stimuli in Studies 2a and 2b

Participants

Power analysis (G*Power; Erdfelder et al., 1996) indicated that we needed at least 279 participants for 80% power to detect an effect size of R ² = .035 in a multiple regression model (α = .05; two predictors). We nonetheless recruited 691 American Mechanical Turk Workers to ensure sufficient power after removing participants who failed the attention-check question (33%, n = 198; Oppenheimer et al., 2009; Witkower et al., 2019) and those who viewed targets misaligned with their sexual preferences (i.e., homosexual women viewing men, homosexual men viewing women)⁴ for a final sample of 396 participants (73% male, 27% female; 97% White/Caucasian; M_age = 35.02 years, SD = 8.56; 74% heterosexual, 26% bisexual).

Open Science and Transparency

All data and R code are publicly available (https://osf.io/45qwj) and no exploratory measures were administered.

Results and Discussion

We constructed a cross-classified multilevel binomial logistic regression model predicting attraction to dominant faces from long-term and short-term mating orientations, including random intercepts for each target stimulus and participant. Consistent with our hypotheses, participants with higher short-term mating orientation scores, β = .17, Z = 2.80, p = .005, and lower long-term mating orientation scores, β = −.18, Z = −2.91, p = .003, selected a greater proportion of dominant faces (see Table 2 for bivariate correlations). Results of an exploratory analysis showed that neither short-term, β = −.02, Z = −0.36, p = .72, nor long-term, β = −.05, Z = −0.88, p = .38, mating orientation interacted with participant gender. Thus, short-term mating orientation positively relates to attraction to dominant faces, whereas long-term mating orientation negatively relates to attraction to dominant faces, and this effect does not significantly vary for men and women.

Table 2

Bivariate Correlations in Study 2a

Variable	STMO	LTMO	Dominance attraction	Participant gender
STMO	—
LTMO	−.11*	—
Dominance attraction	.15**	−.15**	—
Participant gender	−.05	.04	−.08	—

Note. STMO = Short-term mating orientation, LTMO = Long-term mating orientation. Participant gender (0 = man, 1 = woman).

p≤ .01, *p≤ .05.

Study 2b

Study 2b directly replicated Study 2a, with the key exception that participants explicitly indicated their preferred gender in a romantic partner, and only evaluated faces matching that preference. This design ensures that attraction therefore reflects attraction toward a potential mate, rather than general impressions of facial appearance.

Method

Participants

Power analysis (G*Power; Erdfelder et al., 1996) indicated that we needed at least 279 participants for 80% power to detect an effect size of R ² = .035 in a multiple regression model (α = .05; two predictors). We again recruited 1,305 American Mechanical Turk Workers to ensure sufficient power after removing participants who failed the attention-check question (26%, n = 293) for a final sample of 842 participants (65% male, 35% female; 93% White/Caucasian; M_age = 32.13 years, SD = 7.08), who selected targets matching their sexual preference.

Open Science and Transparency

All data and R code are publicly available (https://osf.io/45qwj) and no exploratory measures were administered.

Results and Discussion

We constructed a multilevel binomial logistic regression model predicting attraction to dominant faces from long-term and short-term mating orientations, including random intercepts for each target stimulus. As above, participants with higher short-term mating orientation scores, β = .09, Z = 2.26, p = .02, and lower long-term mating scores, β = −.11, Z = −2.65, p = .008, selected a greater proportion of dominant faces (see Table 3 for bivariate correlations). Results of an exploratory analysis showed that neither long-term, β = −.01, Z = 0.17, p = .87, nor short-term, β = .11, Z = 1.39, p = .16, mating orientation interacted with gender to predict attraction to dominant faces. Thus, short-term mating orientation positively related to attraction to dominant faces whereas long-term mating orientation negatively related to attraction to dominant faces, and this effect did not significantly vary for men and women.

Table 3

Bivariate Correlations in Study 2b

Variable	STMO	LTMO	Dominance attraction	Participant gender
STMO	—
LTMO	−.01	—
Dominance attraction	.07*	−.09**	—
Participant gender	.01	.08**	−.08*	—

Note. STMO = Short-term mating orientation, LTMO = Long-term mating orientation. Participant gender (0 = man, 1 = woman).

p≤ .01, *p≤ .05.

General Discussion

We find that attraction to people who employ different strategies for attaining social rank depends on mate-seekers’ mating goals. Specifically, people’s tendency toward long-term mating attracted them to prestigious partners but averted them from dominant partners. People’s tendency toward short-term mating, however, attracted them to partners who act with both dominance and prestige. These findings applied to preferences based on personality and facial appearance among both men and women.

Although these findings highlight how social rank elicits attraction based on mating orientation, future research may uncover additional nuances in these dynamics. For example, the association between short-term mating orientation and dominance may vary by the context in which dominance is wielded (e.g., Snyder et al., 2008). For instance, a mate who expresses physical dominance through athleticism may be more attractive than one who expresses physical dominance through violence. Thus, context may factor into how social rank relates to mating preferences. Furthermore, future research should more clearly differentiate between dominance and prestige strategies (i.e., behaviors to acquire higher rank) and hierarchies (i.e., rank that is either freely afforded or aggressively taken) to examine which more closely relates to divergent partner preferences.

Mating orientations may likewise guide attraction to dominance and prestige differently across age groups and cultures. Past research found that individuals vary in their long-term and short-term mating orientations across cultures (e.g., Schmitt, 2005; Schmitt & Shackelford, 2008) and the lifespan (e.g., Hippen, 2016; Willoughby, 2010). Considering these results within the current findings, one might expect younger individuals (who tend to express more short-term mating orientation than older adults) to prize dominance less over time because long-term mating orientation rises during late adulthood to favor prestigious mates. Such a pattern might explain the appeal of “bad boys” among adolescent girls and younger women (e.g., Burriss et al., 2009).

Yet, although a trade-off exists between mating and parenting strategies, the distinction between long-term and short-term mating orientations does not necessarily imply a mutual exclusivity. Indeed, we observed inconsistent (and not conclusively negative) correlations between long-term and short-term mating orientations. Consequently, individuals can exhibit high or low (and simultaneous) tendencies toward both orientations (e.g., someone might accept the notion of casual sex while also desiring a committed, long-term relationship). Navigating partner preferences thus involves a complex interplay of priorities that one must carefully balance between immediate gratification and lasting emotional connection.

Finally, a crucial limitation of this work is that we measure what people think attracts them, rather than their actual satisfaction with dominant and prestigious mates. Although people report greater relationship quality when their actual partner aligns with their ideal partner (Campbell et al., 2001)—demonstrating to the importance of measuring perceptions—future research should examine satisfaction among participants actively engaging in short-term and long-term relationships with prestigious and dominant partners to confirm the validity of their attraction to these alternative rank-pursuit strategies.

In conclusion, attraction to those who pursue high rank is not monolithic, but instead reflects a nuanced interplay between mating orientation and the strategies individuals use to attain social rank. Across the 3 studies presented here (also see Studies S1 and S2 in the SOM), we find consistent evidence that short-term mating orientation is associated with attraction to both dominance and prestige, whereas long-term mating orientation is associated with attraction to prestige and aversion to dominance. These effects emerged for both personality-based and facial appearance-based impressions, and for both men and women.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251386119 – Supplemental material for Short-Term and Long-Term Mating Strategies Show Distinct Patterns of Attraction to Dominance and Prestige

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251386119 for Short-Term and Long-Term Mating Strategies Show Distinct Patterns of Attraction to Dominance and Prestige by Zachary Witkower and Nicholas O. Rule in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Christian Unkelbach

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported with generous funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

ORCID iD

Zachary Witkower

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Zak Witkower is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. He earned his PhD in Social/Personality Psychology from the University of British Columbia before serving as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Toronto. His work explores how subtle movements of the face and body communicate emotion, social rank, and personality, influencing social perception and behavior.

Nicholas Rule is Professor of Psychology and presently serves as the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs at the University of Toronto. He has received a number of awards, including early career awards from the International Social Cognition Network, the International Academy for Intercultural Research, the Ministry of Research and Innovation of Ontario, as well as the Sage Young Scholars Award from the Foundation for Personality and Social Psychology; as well as the 2020 Ig Nobel in Psychology. He is a member of the Royal Society of Canada’s College of New Scholars, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and President-Elect of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

References

Archer

Thanzami

(2007). The relation between physical aggression, size and strength, among a sample of young Indian men. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 627–633.

Bailey

J. M.

Kim

P. Y.

Hills

Linsenmeier

J. A.

(1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 960–973.

Beall

A. T.

Schaller

(2019). Evolution, motivation, and the mating/parenting trade–off. Self and Identity, 18(1), 39–59.

Brown

J. H.

Maurer

B. A.

(1986). Body size, ecological dominance and Cope’s rule. Nature, 324(6094), 248–250.

Burriss

R. P.

Rowland

H. M.

Little

A. C.

(2009). Facial scarring enhances men’s attractiveness for short-term relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 213-217.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

Larsen

R. J.

(2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491–503.

Campbell

Simpson

J. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Fletcher

G. J.

(2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 447–462.

10.

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

(1997). Schooling, intelligence, and income. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1051.

11.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

(2014). Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. In The psychology of social status (pp. 3–27). Springer Science + Business Media.

12.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Foulsham

Kingstone

Henrich

(2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.

13.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Henrich

(2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347.

14.

Conlon

K. E.

(2019). Mate retention strategies of dominance-oriented and prestige-oriented romantic partners. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 317–327.

15.

Čukić

Brett

C. E.

Calvin

C. M.

Batty

G. D.

Deary

I. J.

(2017). Childhood IQ and survival to 79: Follow-up of 94% of the Scottish Mental Survey 1947. Intelligence, 63, 45-50.

16.

Durkee

P. K.

Polo

Muñoz-Reyes

J. A.

Rodríguez-Ruiz

Losada-Pérez

Fernández-Martínez

A. B.

. . .Pita

(2019). Men’s bodily attractiveness: Muscles as fitness indicators. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(2), 1474704919852918.

17.

Erdfelder

Faul

Buchner

(1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 28(1), 1-11.

18.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

Giles

(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72.

19.

Foulsham

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Henrich

Kingstone

(2010). Gaze allocation in a dynamic situation: Effects of social status and speaking. Cognition, 117(3), 319–331.

20.

Henrich

Gil-White

F. J.

(2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196.

21.

Hippen

K. A.

(2016). Attitudes toward marriage and long-term relationships across emerging adulthood. Thesis, Georgia State University.

22.

Jackson

J. J.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

(2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 382–391.

23.

Ketterman

A. B.

Maner

J. K.

(2021). Complaisant or coercive? The role of dominance and prestige in social influence. Personality and Individual Differences, 177, 110814.

24.

N. P.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2006). Sex similarities and differences in attraction to short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468–489.

25.

Maner

J. K.

(2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 526–531.

26.

Maner

J. K.

Case

C. R.

(2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 129–180.

27.

Dotsch

Porter

Todorov

(2020). Gender biases in impressions from faces: Empirical studies and computational models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(2), 323.

28.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

Meyvis

Davidenko

(2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.

29.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275.

30.

Schmitt

D. P.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2008). Big Five traits related to short-term mating: From personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 147470490800600204.

31.

Sell

Tooby

Cosmides

(2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(35), 15073-15078.

32.

Shackelford

T. K.

Schmitt

D. P.

Buss

D. M.

(2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447–458.

33.

Simpson

J. A.

Fletcher

G. J.

Campbell

(2001). The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. In Blackwell handbook of social psychology: interpersonal processes (pp. 86–106). Blackwell.

34.

Simpson

J. A.

Gangestad

S. W.

(1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60(1), 31–51.

35.

Snyder

J. K.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

Barrett

H. C.

(2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15(4), 425–444.

36.

Suessenbach

Loughnan

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Moore

A. B.

(2019). The dominance, prestige, and leadership account of social power motives. European Journal of Personality, 33(1), 7–33.

37.

Toscano

Schubert

T. W.

Sell

A. N.

(2014). Judgments of dominance from the face track physical strength. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 147470491401200101.

38.

Tracy

J. L.

Mercadante

Witkower

Cheng

J. T.

(2020). The evolution of pride and social hierarchy. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 62, pp. 51–114). Academic Press.

39.

Vacharkulksemsuk

Reit

Khambatta

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

Carney

D. R.

(2016). Dominant, open nonverbal displays are attractive at zero-acquaintance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4009–4014.

40.

Varangis

Lanzieri

Hildebrandt

Feldman

(2012). Gay male attraction toward muscular men: Does mating context matter? Body Image, 9(2), 270–278.

41.

Von Rueden

C. R.

Gurven

Kaplan

(2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223–2232.

42.

Von Rueden

C. R.

Jaeggi

A. V.

(2016). Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10824–10829.

43.

Wiggins

J. S.

(1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395.

44.

Willoughby

B. J.

(2010). Marital attitude trajectories across adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1305–1317.

45.

Witkower

Hill

A. K.

Pun

Baron

A. S.

Koster

Tracy

J. L.

(2024). Nonverbal displays of dominance and prestige: Evidence for cross-cultural and early-emerging recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(2), 282.

46.

Witkower

Mercadante

Tracy

J. L.

(2022). The chicken and egg of pride and social rank. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 382–389.

47.

Witkower

Tracy

J. L.

Cheng

J. T.

Henrich

(2019). Two signals of social rank: Prestige and dominance are associated with distinct nonverbal displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(1), 89–120.

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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB