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-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T12:42:18.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Shifts in Partner Attractiveness

from Part III - Postcopulatory Adaptations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Juliana E. French ,
Sierra D. Peters ,
Olivia W. Breedin ,
Emma E. Altgelt  and
Andrea L. Meltzer
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

In addition to facilitating reproduction and gene propagation, partner attractiveness facilitates pair-bond maintenance. For this reason, partner attractiveness is a core issue for women’s long-term relationships. In this chapter, in addition to explicating the qualities that comprise partner attractiveness for women and their functions, we discuss the extent to which the functional importance of these qualities may shift situationally within the context of women’s committed, long-term relationships. Traits signaling (a) social status, access to resources, and willingness to share resources and (b) physical health and genetic benefits can confer direct benefits to offspring and thus women’s attraction to such traits can facilitate reproduction. Although research to date suggests women’s attraction to traits signaling social status, access to resources, and willingness to share resources does not shift over contexts or the life-course of women’s long-term relationships, women’s attraction to traits signaling physical health and genetic benefits seem to fluctuate across fertility status (though some mixed evidence has emerged). Moreover, the function of such traits may shift as women’s long-term relationships develop over time. We highlight each of these shifts in turn. Traits signaling commitment and trustworthiness (e.g., commitment, supportiveness, warmth, kindness) facilitate long-term relationship maintenance. Given relationship maintenance is consistently important to women, such partner qualities are a stable component of partner attractiveness; nevertheless, we raise the possibility that women’s attraction to such traits may heighten at key milestones in women’s relationship (e.g., during the transition to parenthood, when reaching older age). We end this chapter by proffering an evolutionary developmental relationship life-course model that (a) synthesizes the literature on shifts in partner attractiveness for women and their implications for women’s relationships, (b) suggests new ways of thinking about partner attractiveness, and (c) reveals gaps in empirical knowledge that can pave the way for future research.

Keywords

attractionromantic relationshipsreproductive successrelationship maintenancerelationship satisfactionevolutionary psychologyrelationship science
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 374 - 398
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

Alvergne, A., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(3), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.003Google Scholar
Arnocky, S., Hodges-Simeon, C. R., Ouellette, D., & Albert, G. (2018). Do men with more masculine voices have better immunocompetence? Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(6), 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S. M. (2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505052440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.Google Scholar
Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2012). First-time parents’ expectations about the division of childcare and play. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026608Google Scholar
Birnbaum, G. E. (2010). Bound to interact: The divergent goals and complex interplay of attachment and sex within romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509360902Google Scholar
Birnbaum, G. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2015). The magnetism that holds us together: Sexuality and relationship maintenance across relationship development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.009Google Scholar
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 929–943. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.929Google Scholar
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C. (2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 530–546. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000069Google Scholar
Bjorklund, D. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (1999). Differences in parental investment contribute to important differences between men and women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 86–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00020Google Scholar
Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., DeBruine, L. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(3), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, H. G., Dudley, E. C., Robertson, D. M., & Dennerstein, L. (2002). Hormonal changes in the menopause transition. Recent Progress in Hormone Research, 57, 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1210/rp.57.1.257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/S0140525X00023992Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600116Google Scholar
Cantú, S. M., Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Weisberg, Y. J., Durante, K. M., & Beal, D. J. (2014). Fertile and selectively flirty: Women’s behavior toward men changes across the ovulatory cycle. Psychological Science, 25(2), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508413Google Scholar
Cárdenas, R. A., & Harris, L. J. (2007). Do women’s preferences for symmetry change across the menstrual cycle? Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(2), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaix, R., Cao, C., & Donnelly, P. (2008). Is mate choice in humans MHC-dependent? PLoS Genetics, 4(9), https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000184Google Scholar
Cobey, K. D., Little, A. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2015). Hormonal effects on women’s facial masculinity preferences: The influence of pregnancy, post-partum, and hormonal contraceptive use. Biological Psychology, 104, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.002Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Women’s attractiveness judgments of self-resembling faces change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 47(4), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.006Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Blake, K. R., Denson, T. F., Gooda-Vossos, A., O’Dean, S. M., Sulikowski, D., Rantala, M. J., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). The role of mating context and fecundability in women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity and beardedness. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 93, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.04.007Google Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 1012–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024062Google 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(4), 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.768595Google Scholar
Farrelly, D., Clemson, P., & Guthrie, M. (2016). Are women’s mate preferences for altruism also influenced by physical attractiveness? Evolutionary Psychology, 14(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915623698Google Scholar
Feinberg, D. R. (2008). Are human faces and voices ornaments signaling common underlying cues to mate value? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 17(2), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20166Google Scholar
Fessler, D. T. (2002). Reproductive immunosuppression and diet: An evolutionary perspective on pregnancy sickness and meat consumption. Current Anthropology, 43(1), 19–61. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/324128Google Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.863723Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: The curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1). 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614561683Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.933Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614561683Google Scholar
French, J. E., Altgelt, E. E., & Meltzer, A. L. (2019). The implications of sociosexuality for marital satisfaction and dissolution. Psychological Science, 30(10), 1460–1472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619868997Google Scholar
French, J. E., & Meltzer, A. L. (2019). Maximizing tendencies in marriage: Accentuating the implications of readily observable partner characteristics for intimates’ satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(10), 1468–1481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219832337Google Scholar
French, J. E., & Meltzer, A. L. (2020). The implications of changing hormonal contraceptive use after relationship formation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(4), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadassi, R., Bar-Nahum, L. E., Newhouse, S., Anderson, R., Heiman, J. R., Rafaeli, E., & Janssen, E. (2016). Perceived partner responsiveness mediates the association between sexual and marital satisfaction: A daily diary study in newlywed couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0448-2Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Dinh, T., Grebe, N. M., Del Giudice, M., & Thompson, M. E. (2019). Psychological cycle shifts redux: Revisiting a preregistered study examining preferences for muscularity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(6), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.05.005Google 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(1), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.151Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(2), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00003-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 265(1399), 927–933. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Women’s sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 272(1576), 2023–2027. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3112Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2010). Men’s facial masculinity predicts changes in their female partners’ sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle, whereas men’s intelligence does not. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)90018-3Google Scholar
Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., Miller, R. D., & Olp, J. J. (2006). Major histocompatibility complex alleles, sexual responsivity, and unfaithfulness in romantic couples. Psychological Science, 17(10), 830–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01789.xGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1205–1259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035438Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2004). Division of labor and working-class women’s well-being across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.225Google Scholar
Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (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/10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233Google Scholar
Grebe, N. M., Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., & Thornhill, R. (2013). Women’s luteal-phase sexual proceptivity and the functions of extended sexuality. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2106–2110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613485965Google Scholar
Grossman, F. K., Pollack, W. S., & Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children: Predicting the quality and quantity of fathering. Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.82Google Scholar
Henderson, J. J., & Anglin, J. M. (2003). Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(5), 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00036-9Google Scholar
Hicks, L. L., McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., & Olson, M. A. (2016). Capturing the interpersonal implications of evolved preferences? Frequency of sex shapes automatic, but not explicit, partner evaluations. Psychological Science, 27(6), 836–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616638650Google Scholar
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316Google Scholar
Jern, P., Kärnä, A., Hujanen, J., Erlin, T., Gunst, A., Rautaheimo, H., … & Zietsch, B. P. (2018). A high-powered replication study finds no effect of starting or stopping hormonal contraceptive use on relationship quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(4), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.02.008Google Scholar
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Smith, M. J. L. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(1), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9268-yGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L., Cornwell, R. E., Feinberg, D. R., … & Moore, F. R. (2005). Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 272(1561), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2962Google Scholar
Jones, B. C., Vukovic, J., Little, A. C., Roberts, S. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Circum-menopausal changes in women’s preferences for sexually dimorphic shape cues in peer-aged faces. Biological Psychology, 87(3), 453–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.04.004Google Scholar
Jones, M. (1998). Sociosexuality and motivations for romantic involvement. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2212Google Scholar
Jünger, J., Kordsmeyer, T. L., Gerlach, T. M., & Penke, L. (2018a). Fertile women evaluate male bodies as more attractive, regardless of masculinity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.03.007Google Scholar
Jünger, J., Motta-Mena, N. V., Cardenas, R., Bailey, D., Rosenfield, K. A., Schild, C., … & Puts, D. A. (2018b). Do women’s preferences for masculine voices shift across the ovulatory cycle? Hormones and Behavior, 106, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2018.10.008Google Scholar
Kalmuss, D., Davidson, A., & Cushman, L. (1992). Parenting expectations, experiences, and adjustment to parenthood: A test of the violated expectations framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/353238Google Scholar
Kaplan, H., Gurven, M., Winking, J., Hooper, P. L., & Stieglitz, J. (2010). Learning, menopause, and the human adaptive complex. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1204(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05528.xGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. 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/S0140525X00067595Google Scholar
Keverne, E. B. (1976). Sexual receptivity and attractiveness in the female rhesus monkey. In Advances in the study of behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 155–200). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klimas, C., Ehlert, U., Lacker, T. J., Waldvogel, P., & Walther, A. (2019). Higher testosterone levels are associated with unfaithful behavior in men. Biological Psychology, 146, 107730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107730Google Scholar
Koehler, N., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2002). Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely? Animal Behaviour, 64(2), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3063Google Scholar
Kościński, K. (2011). Life history of female preferences for male faces. Human Nature, 22(4), 416–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-011-9123-7Google Scholar
Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25(3), 883–894. www.jstor.org/stable/3883043Google Scholar
Li, N. P. (2007). Mate preference necessities in long- and short-term mating: People prioritize in themselves what their mates prioritize in them. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 528. http://library.allanschore.com/docs/Li2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. 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/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947Google Scholar
Lie, H. C., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2008). Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 62(10), 2473–2486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00478.xGoogle Scholar
Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Petrie, M., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2013). Oral contraceptive use in women changes preferences for male facial masculinity and is associated with partner facial masculinity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(9), 1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.02.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2007). Preferences for symmetry in faces change across the menstrual cycle. Biological Psychology, 76(3), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.08.003Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2008). Symmetry and sexual dimorphism in human faces: Interrelated preferences suggest both signal quality. Behavioral Ecology, 19(4), 902–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arn049Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Saxton, T. K., Roberts, S. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Vukovic, J., … & Chenore, T. (2010). Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are highest during reproductive age range and lower around puberty and post-menopause. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(6), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.12.006Google Scholar
Manning, C. J., Wakeland, E. K., & Potts, W. K. (1992). Communal nesting patterns in mice implicate MHC genes in kin recognition. Nature, 360(6404), 581–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/360581a0Google Scholar
Marcinkowska, U. M., Hahn, A. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2019). No evidence that women using oral contraceptives have weaker preferences for masculine characteristics in men’s faces. PLoS One, 14(1), e0210162. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210162Google Scholar
Marcinkowska, U. M., Jasienska, G., & Prokop, P. (2018). A comparison of masculinity facial preference among naturally cycling, pregnant, lactating, and post-menopausal women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 1367–1374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1093-3Google Scholar
Meltzer, A. L. (2017). Wives with masculine husbands report increased marital satisfaction near peak fertility. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000083Google Scholar
Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, A., Hicks, L. L., French, J. E., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2017). Quantifying the sexual afterglow: The lingering benefits of sex and their implications for pair-bonded relationships. Psychological Science, 28(5), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617691361Google Scholar
Meltzer, A. L., & McNulty, J. K. (2014) “Tell me I’m sexy… and otherwise valuable”: Body valuation and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12018Google Scholar
Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., Jackson, G. L., & Karney, B. R. (2014). Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034424Google Scholar
Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., & Maner, J. K. (2015). Women like being valued for sex, as long as it is by a committed partner. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0622-1Google Scholar
Menkin, J. A., Robles, T. F., Wiley, J. F., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2015). Online dating across the life span: Users’ relationship goals. Psychology and Aging, 30(4), 987–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039722CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability and fitness: A review. The American Naturalist, 149(5), 916–932. https://doi.org/10.1086/286030Google Scholar
Møller, A. P., & Swaddle, J. P. (1997). Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muise, A., Schimmack, U., & Impett, E. A. (2016). Sexual frequency predicts greater well-being, but more is not always better. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616462Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.6.1155Google Scholar
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2003). The dynamic structure of relationship perceptions: Differential importance as a strategy of relationship maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11), 1433–1446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256376Google Scholar
O’Connor, J. J., Re, D. E., & Feinberg, D. R. (2011). Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491100900109Google Scholar
Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264754Google Scholar
Owens, R., Driscoll, H., & Farrelly, D. (2020). Variation in women’s mate preferences over the development of a monogamous relationship corresponds with changes in men’s life history strategy. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6, 399–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-020-00246-wGoogle Scholar
Paget, W., & Timæus, I. (1994). A relational Gompertz model of male fertility: Development and assessment. Population Studies 48(2), 333–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000147826Google Scholar
Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., & Minamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741–742. https://doi.org/10.1038/21557Google Scholar
Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Women’s sexual strategies: The evolution of long-term bonds and extrapair sex. Annual Review of Sex Research, 17(1), 59–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532528.2006.10559837Google Scholar
Pinkhasov, R. M., Shteynshlyuger, A., Hakimian, P., Lindsay, G. K., Samadi, D. B., & Shabsigh, R. (2010). Are men shortchanged on health? Perspective on life expectancy, morbidity, and mortality in men and women in the United States. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 64(4), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02289.xGoogle Scholar
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.xGoogle Scholar
Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(5), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.03.001Google Scholar
Re, D. E., Tskhay, K. O., Tong, M.-O., Wilson, J. P., Zhong, C.-B., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facing fate: Estimates of longevity from facial appearance and their underlying cues. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3(1), 30–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000015Google Scholar
Roberts, S. C., Gosling, L. M., Carter, V., & Petrie, M. (2008). MHC-correlated odour preferences in humans and the use of oral contraceptives. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 275(1652), 2715–2722. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0825Google Scholar
Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., Havlíček, J., … & Petrie, M. (2014). Partner choice, relationship satisfaction, and oral contraception: The congruency hypothesis. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1497–1503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614532295Google Scholar
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859Google Scholar
Russell, V. M., McNulty, J. K., Baker, L. R., & Meltzer, A. L. (2014). The association between discontinuing hormonal contraceptives and wives’ marital satisfaction depends on husbands’ facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17081–17086. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414784111Google Scholar
Schaller, M. (2011). The behavioral immune system and the psychology of human sociality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1583), 3418–3426. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31(1–2), 1–22. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF01560274Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 456–466. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.456Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminate validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.6.870Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., Christensen, P. N., & Leck, K. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 159–172. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.159Google Scholar
Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. S. (1987). Bereavement and health: The psychological and physical consequences of partner loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., Chapman, J. F., & Gangestad, S. W. (2013). Women’s preferences for men’s scents associated with testosterone and cortisol levels: Patterns across the ovulatory cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5(5), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00629.xGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(3), 175–201. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00005-7Google 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(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.06.001Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., Miller, R., Scheyd, G., McCollough, J. K., & Franklin, M. (2003). Major histocompatibility complex genes, symmetry, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behavioral Ecology, 14(5), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arg043Google Scholar
Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Meltzer, A. L., & Tsai, M. H. (2020). Mate preferences for warmth-trustworthiness predict romantic attraction in the early stages of mate selection and satisfaction in ongoing relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219855048Google Scholar
van Stein, K. R., Strauß, B., & Brenk-Franz, K. (2019). Ovulatory shifts in sexual desire but not mate preferences: An LH-test-confirmed, longitudinal study. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1474704919848116Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 260(1359), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1995.0087Google Scholar
Wood, W., Kressel, L., Joshi, P. D., & Louie, B. (2014). Meta-analysis of menstrual cycle effects on women’s mate preferences. Emotion Review, 6(3), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1754073914523073Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×