3. Human Mating Strategies

Sexual vs natural selection

Sexual selection is a distinct evolutionary process.

Intersexual selection

Mate choice based on preferences.

Intrasexual selection

Competition among same-sex individuals.

Parental Investment Theory (Trivers)

Sex investing more is choosier.

Choosier sex outcome

Less-investing sex competes more.

Male mate preferences

Fertility cues and fidelity.

Female mate preferences

Resource acquisition and commitment.

Overlap in mate preferences

Intelligence, kindness, health valued by both sexes.

Male intrasexual competition

Drives cooperation and competition among males.

Female competition strategies

Indirect strategies like gossip and exclusion.

Sexual Strategies Theory

Humans evolved multiple mating strategies.

Commitment continuum

Mating strategies vary along degree of commitment.

Sociosexual orientation

Openness to uncommitted sexual relationships.

Restricted sociosexuality

Preference for sex within committed relationships.

Unrestricted sociosexuality

Preference for casual and short-term mating.

Mate value

Relative attractiveness in the mating market.

Mate value flexibility

Changes across contexts and life stages.

Adolescent short-term mating

Recalibrates mate value and market position.

Short-term mating benefit males

Increased reproductive opportunities.

Long-term mating benefit males

Paternity certainty.

Short-term mating benefit females

Genetic quality.

Long-term mating benefit females

Resources and parental investment.

Context-dependent preferences

Ecology and resources shape mate preferences.

Sociosexual orientation

Individual differences in openness to uncommitted sex

Restricted sociosexuality

Preference for sex within committed relationships

Unrestricted sociosexuality

Openness to casual and uncommitted sex

Why do adolescents show short-term mating?

To recalibrate mate value and learn the mating market

Are short- and long-term mating exclusive?

No, individuals can pursue both depending on context

Buss et al.

Men value looks more and women value resources across 37 cultures.

Boxer et al.

Confirmed that mate preferences are consistent globally.

Kowal et al.

People enhance their looks more when mate competition is high.

Pronk & Denissen

Choice overload of dating profiles reduces satisfaction and increases pickiness.

Fiske

Risk-taking leads to more high-achieving men but also more male failures.

Gërxhani et al.

Gender gaps in competition come from different preferences, norms, and social contexts.

Browne

Job and pay differences partly reflect evolved sex differences in risk and competition.

Fiske (Outcomes)

Unequal outcomes can happen even with equal ability due to different behavior patterns.

Gërxhani et al. (Gaps)

Leadership and pay gaps persist because competition affects sexes differently biologically and socially.