Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:24:14.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Male Sexual Attraction Tactics

from Part I - Precopulatory Adaptations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Mitch Brown ,
Kaitlyn Boykin ,
Kelsey M. Drea ,
Alicia L. Macchione ,
Mary M. Medlin  and
Donald F. Sacco
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on the behaviors employed by men in the service of attracting mates, which we discuss as having emerged to solve specific reproductive problems faced by women. We consider behaviors employed by men to attract mates in short-term mating and long-term mating contexts, given the differential valuation on certain behavioral repertoire that emerge. In short-term mating, we specifically consider behavioral displays of dominance with their dispositional and situational antecedents before discussing men’s pursuit of distinctiveness and humor use, behaviors ostensibly indicative of good genes. In long-term mating, our discussion centers around the desirability of different resource displays and benevolence. We further discuss cues ostensibly diagnostic of paternal investment ability and an interest in monogamy. Our final section addresses how modern mating markets present adaptive problems for men (e.g., online dating, appearance enhancing behaviors) and how men seek to solve the new problems that have emerged.

Keywords

MatingMen’s reproductive strategiesAttractionSignaling
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 57 - 83
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addison, W. E. (1989). Beardedness as a factor in perceived masculinity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 921–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, S. E., & Maner, J. K. (2012). Sex begets violence: Mating motives, social dominance, and physical aggression in men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 819–829.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. E., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Assailing the competition: Sexual selection, proximate mating motives, and aggressive behavior in men. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1648–1658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ariely, D., Huber, J., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). When do losses loom larger than gains? Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 134–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnocky, S., Piché, T., Albert, G., Ouellette, D., & Barclay, P. (2016). Altruism predicts mating success in humans. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 416–435.Google Scholar
Asendorpf, J. B., Penke, L., & Back, M. D. (2011). From dating to mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality, 25, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barclay, P. (2010). Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 123–135.Google Scholar
Barclay, P., & Barker, J. L. (2020). Greener than thou: People who protect the environment are more cooperative, compete to be environmental, and benefit from reputation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101441. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101441Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363.Google Scholar
Beaussart, M. L., Kaufman, S. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Creative activity, personality, mental illness, and short‐term mating success. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 151–167.Google Scholar
Bereczkei, T., Voros, S., Gal, A., & Bernath, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment: Reproductive decisions in human mate choice. Ethology, 103, 681–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhasin, S., Storer, T. W., Berman, N., Callegari, C., Clevenger, B., Phillips, J., … & Casaburi, R. (1996). The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men. New England Journal of Medicine, 335, 1–7.Google Scholar
Bleske-Rechek, A., Remiker, M. W., Swanson, M. R., & Zeug, N. M. (2006). Women more than men attend to indicators of good character: Two experimental demonstrations. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 248–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, A., & Dabbs, J. M. (1993). Testosterone and men’s marriages. Social Forces, 72, 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1995). Observable attributes as manifestations and cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality, 63, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, W. J., & Crockett, M. J. (2019). How effective is online outrage? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 79–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressler, E. R., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 121–130.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Keefer, L. A., & Sacco, D. F. (2020). Relational insecurity heightens sensitivity to limbal rings in partnered women. Personal Relationships, 27, 61–75.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Keefer, L. A., Sacco, D., & Brown, F. L. (in press). Demonstrate values: Behavioral displays of moral outrage as a cue to long-term mate potential. Emotion.Google Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2017). Unrestricted sociosexuality predicts preferences for extraverted male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 123–127.Google Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2018). Put a (limbal) ring on it: Women perceive men’s limbal rings as a health cue in short-term mating domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 80–91.Google Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2019). Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 957–976.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Sacco, D. F., & Medlin, M. M. (2019). Women’s short-term mating goals elicit avoidance of faces whose eyes lack limbal rings. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13, 278–285.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Westrich, B., Bates, F., Twibell, A., & McGrath, R. E. (2020). Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2003). Sexual strategies: A journey into controversy. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 219–226.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2007). The evolution of human mating strategies. In Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A. (Eds.), The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies (pp. 375–382). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., … & Yang, K.-S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Greiling, H. (1999). Adaptive individual differences. Journal of Personality, 67, 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.Google Scholar
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. In Sedikides, C & Spencer, S. J (Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology: The self (pp. 115–138). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J., & Rowe, L. (2003). Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 41–47.Google Scholar
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347.Google Scholar
Ciarocco, N. J., Echevarria, J., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2012). Hungry for love: The influence of self-regulation on infidelity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clegg, H., Nettle, D., & Miell, D. (2011). Status and mating success amongst visual artists. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiDonato, T. E., Bedminster, M. C., & Machel, J. J. (2013). My funny valentine: How humor styles affect romantic interest. Personal Relationships, 20, 374–390.Google Scholar
DiDonato, T. E., & Jakubiak, B. (2016). Strategically funny: Romantic motives affect humor style in relationship initiation. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixson, B. J., & Brooks, R. C. (2013). The role of facial hair in women’s perceptions of men’s attractiveness, health, masculinity and parenting abilities. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 236–241.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Kennedy-Costantini, S., Lee, A. J., & Nelson, N. L. (2019). Mothers are sensitive to men’s beards as a potential cue of paternal investment. Hormones and Behavior, 113, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixson, B. J. W., Lee, A. J., Sherlock, J. M., & Talamas, S. N. (2017). Beneath the beard: Do facial morphometrics influence the strength of judgments of men’s beardedness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 164–174.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J. W., Sulikowski, D., Gouda‐Vossos, A., Rantala, M. J., & Brooks, R. C. (2016). The masculinity paradox: Facial masculinity and beardedness interact to determine women’s ratings of men’s facial attractiveness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 29, 2311–2320.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., & Vasey, P. L. (2012). Beards augment perceptions of men’s age, social status, and aggressiveness, but not attractiveness. Behavioral Ecology, 23, 481–490.Google Scholar
Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Czarna, A. Z., & Denissen, J. J. (2013). Are narcissists sexy? Zeroing in on the effect of narcissism on short-term mate appeal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 870–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, V., & McCorkindale, C. (2007). Narcissism, vanity, personality and mating effort. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2105–2115.Google Scholar
Einhorn, R. (2009). The D.E.N.N.I.S System. Episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Etcoff, N. L., Stock, S., Haley, L. E., Vickery, S. A., & House, D. M. (2011). Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human phenotype: Modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PLoS One, 6, e25656.Google Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A., & Crockett, M. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 772–787.Google Scholar
Farrelly, D. (2013). Altruism as an indicator of good parenting quality in long-term relationships: Further investigations using the mate preferences towards altruistic traits scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 395–398.Google Scholar
Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists attract. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 313–329.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226–235.Google Scholar
Folstad, I., & Karter, A. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist, 139, 603–622.Google Scholar
Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183.Google Scholar
Freeman, S. (2015). Could a pair of contacts make you look younger? Lenses that define border of iris take years off your face, makers claim. Daily Mail. Retrieved from www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2971960/Could-pair-contacts-make-look-YOUNGER-Lenses-define-border-iris-years-face-makers-claim.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gale, A., & Lewis, M. B. (2020). When the camera does lie: Selfies are dishonest indicators of dominance. Psychology of Popular Media, 9, 447–455.Google Scholar
Gallup, A. C., White, D. D., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2007). Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 423–429.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J. (2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151–163.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Goldberg, T. L. (1995). Altruism towards panhandlers: Who gives? Human Nature, 6, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greengross, G. (2014). Male production of humor produced by sexually selected psychological adaptations. In Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 173–196). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39, 188–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greengross, G., Silvia, P. J., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2020). Sex differences in humor production ability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 84, 103886. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 63–76.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 69–80.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Gangestad, S. W., Perea, E. F., Shapiro, J. R., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 980–994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102.Google Scholar
Guzman, A., & Perry, C. (2019). Here’s how much to spend on an engagement ring. The Knot. Retrieved from www.theknot.com/content/how-much-to-spend-on-engagement-ringGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 117–135.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367–386.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the life cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature, 17, 50–73.Google Scholar
Hogg, J. T. (1987). Intrasexual competition and mate choice in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Ethology, 75, 119–144.Google Scholar
Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2011). The intertwined evolution of narcissism and short-term mating: An emerging hypothesis. In Campbell, W. K. & Miller, J. D. (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 210–220). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iredale, W., Jenner, K., Van Vugt, M., & Dempster, T. (2020). Giving guys get the girls: Men appear more desirable to the opposite sex when displaying costly donations to the homeless. Social Sciences, 9, 141.Google Scholar
Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 386–392.Google Scholar
Janif, Z. J., Brooks, R. C., & Dixson, B. J. (2015). Are preferences for women’s hair color frequency-dependent? Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1, 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauk, E., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). The dark triad and trait versus ability emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 37 , 112–118.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K. (2007). An evolutionary psychology perspective on sex differences in exercise behaviors and motivations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 5–14.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 606–610.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Lyons, M., & Blanchard, A. (2015). Birds of a “bad” feather flock together: The Dark Triad and mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han, C., … & O’Shea, K. J. (2018). No compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity track changes in women’s hormonal status. Psychological Science, 29, 996–1005.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. 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.Google Scholar
Kleiman, D. G., & Malcolm, J. R. (1981). The evolution of male parental investment in mammals. In Gubernick, D. J. & Klopfer, P. H. (Eds.), Parental care in mammals (pp. 347–387). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D., & Houde, A. (2007). Evolution of frequency-dependent mate choice: Keeping up with fashion trends. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 1317–1324.Google Scholar
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. (2009). Costs and benefits of fat-free muscle mass in men: Relationship to mating success, dietary requirements, and native immunity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 322–328.Google Scholar
Latané, B. (1970). Field studies of altruistic compliance. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1, 49–61.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K., Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 923–936.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., … & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757–776.Google Scholar
Li, Y. J., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., & Neuberg, S. L. (2012). Economic decision biases and fundamental motivations: How mating and self-protection alter loss aversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 550–561.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W. (2013). Testing an adaptationist theory of trait covariation: Relative bargaining power as a common calibrator of an interpersonal syndrome. European Journal of Personality, 27, 328–345.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 409–421.Google Scholar
Lyons, M., & Blanchard, A. (2016). “I could see, in the depth of his eyes, my own beauty reflected”: Women’s assortative preference for narcissistic, but not for Machiavellian or psychopathic male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 40–44.Google Scholar
Makhanova, A., McNulty, J. K., & Maner, J. K. (2017). Relative physical position as an impression-management strategy: Sex differences in its use and implications. Psychological Science, 28, 567–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, R. E., Greenberg, M. J., & Hall-Simmonds, A. (2018). Scarecrow, Tin Woodsman, and Cowardly Lion: The three-factor model of virtue. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 373–392.Google Scholar
McGrath, R. E. (2021). Darwin meets Aristotle: Evolutionary evidence for three fundamental virtues. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16, 431–445.Google Scholar
Mealey, L. (1997). Bulking up: The roles of sex and sexual orientation on attempts to manipulate physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 223–228.Google Scholar
Medlin, M. M., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2018). That’s what she said! Perceived mate value of clean and dirty humor displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 192–200.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: Heinemann/Doubleday.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 97–125.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2009). Spent: Sex, evolution and consumer behavior. New York, NY: Penguin/Putnam.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2006). Reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1469–1480.Google Scholar
Neave, N., & Shields, K. (2008). The effects of facial hair manipulation on female perceptions of attractiveness, masculinity, and dominance in male faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 373–377.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 363–373.Google Scholar
Nettle, D., & Clegg, H. (2006). Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273, 611–615.Google Scholar
Oswald, F., Hughes, S., Champion, A., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020). In search of the appeal of the “DILF.” Psychology & Sexuality. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2020.1769164Google Scholar
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2011). His biceps become him: A test of objectification theory’s application to drive for muscularity and propensity for steroid use in college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 246–256.Google Scholar
Parsa, K. M., Gao, W., Lally, J., Davison, S. P., & Reilly, M. J. (2019). Evaluation of personality perception in men before and after facial cosmetic surgery. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 21, 369–374.Google Scholar
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 229–241.Google Scholar
Phillips, T., Barnard, C., Ferguson, E., & Reader, T. (2008). Do humans prefer altruistic mates? Testing a link between sexual selection and altruism towards non-relatives. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 555–572.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175.Google Scholar
Reiter, J., Panken, K. J., & Le Boeuf, B. J. (1981). Female competition and reproductive success in northern elephant seals. Animal Behaviour, 29, 670–687.Google Scholar
Ronay, R., & von Hippel, W. (2010). The presence of an attractive woman elevates testosterone and physical risk taking in young men. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 57–64.Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., Mahler, S. V., & Maestripieri, D. (2003). Behavioral and hormonal responses of men to brief interactions with women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 365–375.Google Scholar
Saad, G. (2007). The evolutionary bases of consumption. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., Lustgraaf, C. J., & Hugenberg, K. (2017). The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3, 125–132.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., Lustgraaf, C. J. N., & Young, S. G. (2017). Women’s dangerous world beliefs predict more accurate discrimination of affiliative cues in faces. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 309–315.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., & Medlin, M. M. (2019). Perfectionism and relationship status influence health evaluations of faces with limbal rings. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 447–453.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Holifield, K., Drea, K., Brown, M., & Macchione, A. (2020). Dad and mom bods? Inferences of parenting ability from bodily cues. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salska, I., Frederick, D. A., Pawlowski, B., Reilly, A. H., Laird, K. T., & Rudd, N. A. (2008). Conditional mate preferences: Factors influencing preferences for height. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 203–215.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.Google Scholar
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, 246–282.Google Scholar
Shoup, M. L., & Gallup, G. G. (2008). Men’s faces convey information about their bodies and their behavior: What you see is what you get. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 469–479.Google Scholar
Shyu, B. P., & Wyatt, H. J. (2009). Appearance of the human eye: Optical contributions to the “limbal ring.” Optometry and Vision Science, 86, E1069–E1077.Google Scholar
Stirrat, M., Gumert, M., & Perrett, D. (2011). The effect of attractiveness on food sharing preferences in human mating markets. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 79–91.Google Scholar
Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 664–680.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Diwell, R., & McCreary, D. R. (2014). Sexuality and the drive for muscularity: Evidence of associations among British men. Body Image, 11, 543–546.Google Scholar
Sylwester, K., & Pawłowski, B. (2011). Daring to be darling: Attractiveness of risk takers as partners in long- and short-term sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 64, 695–706.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, C., Yamagishi, T., Tanida, S., Kiyonari, T., & Kanazawa, S. (2006). Attractiveness and cooperation in social exchange. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 315–329.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 131–144.Google Scholar
Tognetti, A., Berticat, C., Raymond, M., & Faurie, C. (2012). Sexual selection of human cooperative behaviour: An experimental study in rural Senegal. PLoS One, 7, e44403.Google Scholar
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Penke, L., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Judging a man by the width of his face: The role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events. Psychological Science, 25, 806–811.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M., & Iredale, W. (2012). Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 3–13.Google Scholar
von Borell, C. J., Kordsmeyer, T. L., Gerlach, T. M., & Penke, L. (2019). An integrative study of facultative personality calibration. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 235–248.Google Scholar
Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the “real” me, searching for the “actual” you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707–1723.Google Scholar
Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 918–929.Google Scholar
Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P., Küfner, A. C. P., … & Back, M. D. (2017). Narcissism and romantic relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 280–306.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×