Mate choice copying and mate quality bias: Different processes, different species

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 908-911

  Vakirtzis, Antonios ^a   Roberts, S Craig ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evolutionary psychology; Mate choice; Mating skew; Serial monogamy

Indexed keywords

MATE CHOICE; MATE RECOGNITION; MONOGAMY; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY;

EID: 67651119953     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp073     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Alexander RD, Hoogland JL, Howard RD, Noonan KM, Sherman PW. 1979. Sexual dimorphisms and breeding systems in pinnipeds, ungulates, primates and humans. In: Chagnon NA, Irons W, editors. Evolutionary biology and human social behavior. North Scituate (MA): Duxbury Press. p. 402-435.
2. Amlacher J, Dugatkin LA. 2005. Preference for older over younger models during mate-choice copying in young guppies. Ethol Ecol Evol. 17:161-169.
3. Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
4. Avise JC, Trexler JC, Travis J, Nelson WS. 1991. Poecilia mexicana is the recent female parent of the unisexual fish P. formosa. Evolution. 45:1530-1533.
5. Barrett L, Dunbar R, Lycett J. 2002. Human evolutionary psychology. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Bisazza A. 1993. Male competition, female mate choice and sexual size dimorphism in poeciliid fishes. In: Huntingford FA, Torricelli P, editors. Behavioural ecology of fishes. Chur (Switzerland): Harwood Academic Press. p. 257-286.
7. Briggs SE, Godin J-GJ, Dugatkin LA. 1996. Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol. 7:151-157.
8. Buss D. 1994. The evolution of desire: strategies of human mating. New York (NY): Basic Books.
9. Buss D. 1999. Evolutionary psychology. Boston (MA): Allyn and Bacon.
10. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. 1993. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev. 100:204-232.
11. Clutton-Brock T, McComb K. 1993. Experimental tests of copying and mate choice in fallow deer (Dama dama). Behav Ecol. 4:191-193.
12. Danchin E, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH. 2004. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science. 305:487-491.
13. Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
14. Dugatkin LA. 1992. Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat. 139:1384-1389.
15. Dugatkin LA. 1996a. Copying and mate choice. In: Heyes CM, Galef BG, editors. Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. London: Academic Press. p. 85-105.
16. Dugatkin LA. 1996b. Interface between culturally based preferences and genetic preferences: female mate choice in Poecilia reticulata. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93:2770-2773.
17. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-GJ. 1993. Female mate copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): age-dependent effects. Behav Ecol. 4:289-292.
18. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-GJ. 1998. Effects of hunger on mate-choice copying in the guppy. Ethology. 104:194-202.
19. Elder GH. 1969. Appearance and education in marriage mobility. Am Socio Rev. 34:519-533.
20. Ens BJ, Choudhury S, Black JM. 1996. Mate fidelity and divorce in monogamous birds. In: Black JM, editor. Partnerships in birds: the study of monogamy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 344-401.
21. Eva KW, Wood TJ. 2006. Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans. Can Med Assoc J. 175:1573-1574.
22. Fisher HE. 1989. Evolution of human serial pairbonding. Am J Phys Anthropol. 78:331-354.
23. Fisher HE. 1994. The nature of romantic love. J NIH Res. 6:59-64.
24. Galef BG, White DJ. 2000. Evidence of social effects on mate choice in vertebrates. Behav Process. 51:167-175.
25. Gangestad SW, Scheyd GJ. 2005. The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annu Rev Anthropol. 34:523-548.
26. Gibson RM, Höglund J. 1992. Copying and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol. 7:229-232.
27. Grant JWA, Green LD. 1996. Mate copying versus preference for actively courting males by female Japanese medaka. Behav Ecol. 7:165-167.
28. Hill SE, Buss DM. 2008. The mere presence of opposite-sex others on judgments of sexual and romantic desirability: opposite effects for men and women. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 34:635-647.
29. Hill SE, Ryan MJ. 2006. The role of model female quality in the mate choice copying behaviour of sailfin mollies. Biol Lett. 2:203-205.
30. Höglund J, Alatalo RV, Gibson RM, Lundberg A. 1995. Mate-choice copying in black grouse. Anim Behav. 49:1627-1633.
31. Hubbs CL, Hubbs LC. 1932. Apparent parthenogenesis in nature, in a form of fish of hybrid origin. Science. 76:628-630. Little AC, Burriss RP, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Caldwell CA. 2008.
32. Social influence in human face preference: men and women are influenced more for long-term than short-term attractiveness decisions. Evol Hum Behav. 29:140-146.
33. MacLaren RD, Rowland WJ, Morgan N. 2004. Female preferences for sailfin and body size in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Ethology. 110:363-379.
34. Marler CA, Ryan MJ. 1997. Origin and maintenance of a female mating preference. Evolution. 51:1244-1248.
35. Miller GF, Todd PM. 1998. Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends Cognit Sci. 2:190-198.
36. Milonoff M, Nummi P, Nummi O, Pienmunne E. 2007. Male friends, not female company, make a man more attractive. Ann Zool Fennici. 44:348-354.
37. Nordell SE, Valone TJ. 1998. Mate choice copying as public information. Ecol Lett. 1:74-76.
38. Pillsworth EG, Haselton MG. 2006. Women's sexual strategies: the evolution of long-term bonds and extrapair sex. Annu Rev Sex Res. 17:59-100.
39. Pomiankowski A. 1987. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol. 128:195-218.
40. Pomiankowski A. 1990. How to find the top male. Nature. 347:616-617.
41. Pruett-Jones S. 1992. Independent versus nonindependent mate choice: do females copy each other? Am Nat. 140:1000-1009.
42. Reynolds JD, Gross MR. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat. 136:230-243.
43. Rhodes G. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 57:199-226.
44. Roberts SC, Havlicek J, Flegr J, Hruskova M, Little AC, Jones BC, Perrett DI, Petrie M. 2004. Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271:S270-S272.
45. Roberts SC, Little AC. 2008. Good genes, complementary genes and human mate choice. Genetica. 132:309-321.
46. Ryan MJ, Dries LA, Batra P, Hillis DM. 1996. Male mate preferences in a gynogenetic species complex of Amazon mollies. Anim Behav. 52:1225-1236.
47. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ. 1994. Benefit to male Sailfin Mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science. 263:373-374.
48. Symons D. 1995. Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: the evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In: Abramson PR, Pinkerton SD, editors. Sexual nature/sexual culture. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press. p. 80-118.
49. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. 1999. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cognit Sci. 3:452-460.
50. Townsend JM. 1998. What women want-what men want. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
51. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Chicago (IL): Aldine. p. 136-179.
52. Turner BJ. 1982. The evolutionary genetics of a unisexual fish, Poecilia formosa. In: Barigozzi C, editor. Mechanisms of speciation. New York (NY): Alan R. Liss. p. 265-305.
53. Udry R, Eckland BK. 1984. Benefits of being attractive: differential payoffs for men and women. Psychol Rep. 54:47-56.
54. Uller T, Johansson LC. 2003. Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect: are married men more attractive? Hum Nat. 14: 267-276.
55. Wade MJ, Pruett-Jones SG. 1990. Female copying increases the variance in male mating success. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 87: 5749-5753.
56. Waynforth D. 2007. Mate choice copying in humans. Hum Nat. 18:264-271.
57. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK. 2000. Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav. 59:467-476.
58. Widemo MS. 2006. Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. Behav Ecol. 17:255-259.
59. Witte K, Ryan MJ. 1998. Male body length influences mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna. Behav Ecol. 9:534-539.
60. Witte K, Ryan MJ. 2002. Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna, in the wild. Anim Behav. 2002:943-949.
61. Witte K, Ueding K. 2003. Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behav Ecol. 14:389-395.
62. Woodhead AD, Armstrong N. 1985. Aspects of the mating behaviour of male mollies (Poecilia spp.). J Fish Biol. 27:593-601.