The parental investment model and minimum mate choice criteria in humans

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 57-61

  Woodward, Kevin ^a   Richards, Miriam H ^a  

^a BROCK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Human behavior; Mate choice; Parental involvement; Sex differences

Indexed keywords

HUMAN BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE;

EID: 12344250157     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arh121     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alcock J, 1998. Animal behavior, 6th ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.
2. Bereczkei T, Voros S, Gal A, Bernath L, 1997. Resources, attractiveness, family commitment; Reproductive decisions in human mate choice. Ethology 103:681-699.
3. Berry DS, Miller KM, 2001. When boy meets girl: attractiveness and the five-factor model in opposite-sex interactions. J Res Pers 35:62-77.
4. Bleske AL, Buss DM, 2000. A comprehensive theory of human mating must explain between-sex and within-sex differences in mating strategies. Behav Brain Sci 23:593-644.
5. Borgerhoff Mulder M, 1990. Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy men: evidence for female choice in mammals? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:255-264.
6. Buss DM, Shackelford TK, LeBlanc GJ, 2000. Number of children desired and preferred spousal age difference: context-specific mate preference patterns across 37 cultures. Evol Hum Behav 21:323-331.
7. Buunk B, Dijkstra P, Kenrick DT, Warntjes A, 2001. Age preferences for mates as related to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evol Hum Behav 22:241-250.
8. Clutton-Brock TH, 1989. Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc Lond B 236:339-372.
9. Daly M, Wilson MI, 1999. Human evolutionary psychology and animal behaviour. Anim Behav 57:509-519.
10. deSousa Campos L, Otta E, de Oliveira Siqueira J, 2002. Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analyses and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evol Hum Behav 23:395-406.
11. Gangestad SW, Simpson JA, 2000. The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 23:573-644.
12. Geary DC, 2000. Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychol Bull 126:55-77.
13. Heath KM, Hadley C, 1998. Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society: Mating versus parental effort. Curr Anthropol 39:369-375.
14. Herz R, Inzlicht M, 2002. Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in human mate selection: the importance of smell for women. Evol Hum Behav 23:359-364.
15. Hill E, 2000. Conditional mating strategies are contingent on return from investment. Behav Brain Sci 23:573-644.
16. Jacob S, McClintock MK, Zelano B, Ober C, 2002. Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with women's choice of male odor. Nat Genet 30:175-179.
17. Kenrick DT, Groth GE, Trost MR, Sadalla EK, 1993. Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives: the effects of gender, self-appraisal and individual differences on mate selection criteria. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:950-969.
18. Kenrick DT, Keefe R, 1992. Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 77:75-133.
19. Kenrick DT, Sadalla EK, Groth G, Trost MR, 1990. Evolution, traits and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. J Personal 58:97-116.
20. Landolt MA, Lalumiere ML, Quinsey VL, 1995. Sex-differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: an evolutionary approach. Ethol Sociobiol 16:3-23.
21. Noe R, Hammerstein P, 1995. Biological markets. Trends Ecol Evol 10:336-339.
22. Ober C, Weitkamp LR, Cox N, Dytch H, Kostyu D, Elias S, 1997. HLA and mate choice in humans. Am J Hum Genet 61:497-504.
23. Pawlowski B, Dunbar RIM, 1999. Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:281-285.
24. Sadalla EK, Kenrick DT, B V, 1987. Dominance and heterosexual attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:730-738.
25. Thibaut JW, Kelley HH, 1959. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
26. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW, 1999. The scent of symmetry: a human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evol Hum Behav 20:175-201.
27. Townsend JM, Wasserman T, 1997. The perception of sexual attractiveness: sex differences in variability. Arch Sex Behav 26:243-268.
28. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man (Campbell B, ed). Chicago: Aldine; 136-179.
29. Wedekind C, Furi S, 1997. Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1471-1479.