Identifying the ideal mate: More evidence for male-female convergence

Current Psychology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 157-166

  Cramer, Robert Ervin ^a   Schaefer, Jeffrey T ^a   Reid, Suzanne ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0010010789     PISSN: 10461310     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/bf02686948     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
2. Batten, M. (1992). Sexual strategies: How females choose their mates. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. Buss, D. M. (1987). Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In C. Crawford, D. Krebs, & M. Smith (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues, and application (pp. 335-352). Hilisdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
4. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of hwnan matins. Nw York: Basic Books.
5. Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-30.
6. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,559-570.
7. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating, Psychological Review, 100,204-232.
8. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
9. Clore, G. L. & Byrne, D. (1974). A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.). Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 143-170). New York: Academic Press.
10. Cramer, R. E., Weiss, R. F., Steigleder, M. K., & Balling, S. S. (1985). Attraction in context: Acquisition and blocking of person-directed action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,1221-1230.
11. Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59,61-72.
12. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior. Boston: Willard Grant Press.
13. Darwin, C. R. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Degler, C. N. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Danvinism in American social thought. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Duck, S. W., & Miell, D. E. (1983). Mate choice in humans as an interpersonal process. In P. Bateson (Ed.). Mate choice (pp. 377-386). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,981-993.
16. Fisher, H. (1992). Anatomy of love: The mysteries of mating, marriage, and why we stray. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
17. Green, S. K., Buchanan, D. R., & Heuer, S. K. (1984). Winners, losers, and choosers: A field investigation of dating initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10,502-511.
18. Greenlees, I. A., & McGrew, W. C. (1994). Sex and age differences in preferences and tactics of attraction: Analysis of published advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15,59-72.
19. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror.... The importance of looks in everyday life. New York: State University of New York Press.
20. Keating, C. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48,61-70.
21. Kenrick, D. T., (1994). Evolutionary social psychology: From sexual selection to social cognition. In Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 26. (pp. 75-121). New York: Academic Press.
22. 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.
23. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproduction strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15,75-133.
24. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-116.
25. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
26. Landolt, M. A., Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16,3-23.
27. Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1968). A learning approach to interpersonal attitudes. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.). Psychological foundation of attitudes (pp. 67-88). New York: Academic Press.
28. Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1972). The power of liking: Consequences of interpersonal attitudes derived from a liberalized view of secondary reinforcement. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). (pp. 109-148). New York: Academic Press.
29. Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and propinquity in friendship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,205-213.
30. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). ne acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
31. Rushton, J. P., & Nicholson, I. R. (1988). Genetic similarity theory, intelligence, and human mate choice. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9,45-57.
32. Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.
33. Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30,654-657.
34. Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles, 21,591-607.
35. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241-253.
37. Travers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.). Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
38. Trivers, R, (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
39. Walster, E., Aronson, D., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4,508-516.
40. Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 331-335.
41. Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New York: Pantheon.