Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 843-853

  Stewart, Stephanie ^a   Stinnett, Heather ^a   Rosenfeld, Lawrence B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential parental investment; Heterosexual relationships; Sex differences; Sexual strategies theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034554375     PISSN: 02654075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0265407500176008     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Buss, D. M. (1985, January-February). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.
2. Buss, D. M. (1994, May-June). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82, 238-249.
3. Buss, D. M. (1998). The psychology of human mate selection: Exploring the complexity of the strategic repertoire. In C. B. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 405-429). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
5. Buss, D. M., Shakelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T., & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 125-150.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Davis, A. (1998). Age differences in dating and marriage: Reproductive strategies or social preferences? Current Anthropology, 39, 374-380.
8. Games, P. (1971). Multiple comparisons of means. American Educational Research Journal, 7, 531-565.
9. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Men's and women's preferences in marital partners in the United States, Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 728-750.
10. Kenrick, D. T., Gabrielidis, C., Keefe, R. C., & Cornelius, J. S. (1996). Adolescents' age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67, 1499-1511.
11. 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.
12. Kenrick, D. T., & Trost, M. R. (1997). Evolutionary approaches to relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd ed., pp. 151-177). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
13. Knox, D., Zusman, M., & Nieves. W. (1997). College students' homogamous preferences for a date and a mate. College Student Journal, 31, 445-448.
14. Miller, G. F. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution. In C. B. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87-129). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53-73.
16. Rosenfeld, L. B. (1999). [Ratings of the Commonness of five dating situations]. Unpublished raw data.