Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences

Based on undergraduates' self-reports of mate preferences for various traits and self-perceptions of their own levels on those traits, Buston and Emlen [Buston PM, Emlen ST (2003) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8805–8810] concluded that modern human mate choices do not reflect predictions of tradeoffs from evolutionary theory but instead follow a “likes-attract” pattern, where people choose mates who match their self-perceptions. However, reported preferences need not correspond to actual mate choices, which are more relevant from an evolutionary perspective. In a study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event, we were largely able to replicate Buston and Emlen's self-report results in a pre-event questionnaire, but we found that the stated preferences did not predict actual choices made during the speed-dates. Instead, men chose women based on their physical attractiveness, whereas women, who were generally much more discriminating than men, chose men whose overall desirability as a mate matched the women's self-perceived physical attractiveness. Unlike the cognitive processes that Buston and Emlen inferred from self-reports, this pattern of results from actual mate choices is very much in line with the evolutionary predictions of parental investment theory.

[1]  Steven W. Gangestad,et al.  Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences , 1993 .

[2]  James M. Donovan Facial Attractiveness : Evolutionary , Cognitive , and Social Perspectives , 2003 .

[3]  M. Orne On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. , 1962 .

[4]  L. Ward Social Forces , 1911, The Psychological Clinic.

[5]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[6]  A. Tellegen,et al.  Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  K. Grammer,et al.  Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts , 2004 .

[8]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[9]  Ilana Ritov,et al.  Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues , 1999 .

[10]  Leslie A. Zebrowitz,et al.  Sensitivity to “Bad Genes” and the Anomalous Face Overgeneralization Effect: Cue Validity, Cue Utilization, and Accuracy in Judging Intelligence and Health , 2004 .

[11]  Karolien Poels,et al.  Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Douglas T. Kenrick,et al.  Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. , 1993 .

[13]  Paul W. Eastwick,et al.  Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. , 2007 .

[14]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Effects of introspection on attitude-behavior consistency: Analyzing reasons versus focusing on feelings , 1986 .

[15]  S. G. Vandenberg Assortative mating, or who marries whom? , 1972 .

[16]  D. Buss,et al.  Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. , 1993, Psychological review.

[17]  B. Campbell Forces and Strategies in Evolution. (Book Reviews: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971) , 1972 .

[18]  R. Kurzban,et al.  HurryDate: Mate preferences in action , 2005 .

[19]  Leslie A. Zebrowitz,et al.  Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives , 2001 .

[20]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[21]  Frank J. Bernieri,et al.  Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream , 2000 .

[22]  G. Fletcher,et al.  Ideals in intimate relationships. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  R. Trivers The Elements of a Scientific Theory of Self‐Deception , 2000, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[24]  W. Tooke,et al.  Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual mating strategies , 1991 .

[25]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  M. Mulder Are men and women really so different? , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  J. Simpson,et al.  The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[28]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[29]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[30]  D. Buss,et al.  Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[31]  ダーウィン チャールス,et al.  The descent of man and selection in relation to sex , 1907 .

[32]  R. LaPiere Attitudes vs Actions. 1934. , 1934, International journal of epidemiology.

[33]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Hindsight bias: How knowledge and heuristics affect our reconstruction of the past , 2003, Memory.

[34]  Charles D. Barrett Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[35]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[36]  P. Pye-Smith The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , 1871, Nature.

[37]  S. Emlen,et al.  Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  A. W. Wicker Attitudes Versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. , 1969 .

[39]  P. Todd,et al.  Mate choice turns cognitive , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[41]  C. Alberini,et al.  Memory , 2006, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences CMLS.

[42]  B. Ellis,et al.  Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy: an Evolutionary Psychological Approach , 1990 .

[43]  John Sabini,et al.  Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: a review. , 2005, Psychological bulletin.