How humans cognitively manage an abundance of mate options

Psychological Science

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 528-533

  Lenton, Alison P ^a   Francesconi, Marco ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Choice overload; Cognition; Decision making; Evolutionary psychology; Mate choice; Speed dating

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; COGNITION; COURTSHIP; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REACTION TIME; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; COURTSHIP; CUES; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; REACTION TIME; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77951251624     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610364958     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baumeister, R.F., Catanese, K.R., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242-273.
2. Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 170-183.
3. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6, 178-190.
4. Fasolo, B., Carmeci, F.A., & Misuraca, R. (2009). The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: When choice takes longer but feels shorter. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 213-228.
5. 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.
6. Finkel, E.J., & Eastwick, P.W. (2008). Speed-dating. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 193-197.
7. Fiske, S. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 357-411). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
8. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Haselton, M.G., & Buss, D.M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81-91.
10. Huberman, G., & Jiang, W. (2006). Offering versus choice in 401(k) plans: Equity exposure and number of funds. Journal of Finance, 61, 763-801.
11. Hutchinson, J.M.C. (2005). Is more choice always desirable? Evi-dence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biological Review, 80, 73-92.
12. Iyengar, S.S., & Lepper, M.R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995-1006.
13. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227-244.
14. Lenton, A.P., Bryan, A., Hastie, R., & Fischer, O. (2007). We want the same thing: Projection in judgments of sexual intent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 975-988.
15. Lenton, A.P., Fasolo, B., & Todd, P.M. (2008). "Shopping" for a mate: Expected vs. experienced preferences in online mate choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51, 169-182.
16. Lenton, A.P., Fasolo, B., & Todd, P.M. (2009). The relationship between number of potential mates and mating skew in humans. Animal Behaviour, 77, 55-60.
17. Lenton, A.P., & Stewart, A. (2008). Changing her ways: Number of options and mate standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 501-511.
18. Malhotra, N.K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 419-430.
19. Miller, G.F. (1997). Mate choice: From sexual cues to cognitive adap-tations. In G. Cardew (Ed.), Characterizing human psychological adaptations (Ciba Foundation Symposium No. 208, pp. 71-87). Malden, MA: Wiley.
20. Miller, G.F., & Todd, P.M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190-198.
21. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2005). Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects. Journal of Econometrics, 128, 301-323.
23. Reutskaja, E., & Hogarth, R.M. (2009). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When "goods satiate." Psychology & Marketing, 26, 197-203.
24. Saad, G., Eba, A., & Sejean, R. (2009). Sex differences when search-ing for a mate: A process-tracing approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 171-190.
25. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P.M. (in press). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice over-load. Journal of Consumer Research.
26. Schwartz, B. (2004). The tyranny of choice. Scientific American, 290, 70-75.
27. Simon, H.A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1-19.
28. Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31-51.
29. Sullivan, M.S. (1994). Mate choice as information gathering process under time constraint: Implication for behaviour and signal design. Animal Behaviour, 47, 141-151.
30. Todd, P.M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A.P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 15011-15016.