The height of choosiness: Mutual mate choice for stature results in suboptimal pair formation for both sexes

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 37-46

  Stulp, Gert ^a   Buunk, Abraham P ^a,b   Kurzban, Robert ^c,d   Verhulst, Simon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b ROYAL NETHERLANDS ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Human; Mutual mate choice; Pair formation; Sexual selection; Speed dating; Stature

Indexed keywords

HEIGHT; HUMAN BEHAVIOR; MATE CHOICE; PAIR BOND; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EID: 84880168992     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.038     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Asendorpf J., Penke L., Back M. From dating to mating and relating: predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality 2011, 30:16-30.
2. Back M.D., Penke L., Schmukle S.C., Sachse K., Borkenau P., Asendorpf J.B. Why mate choices are not as reciprocal as we assume: the role of personality, flirting and physical attractiveness. European Journal of Personality 2011, 25:120-132.
3. Baldauf S.A., Kullmann H., Schroth S.H., Thunken T., Bakker T.C. You can't always get what you want: size assortative mating by mutual mate choice as a resolution of sexual conflict. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2009, 9:129.
4. Belot M., Fidrmuc J. Anthropometry of love: height and gender asymmetries in interethnic marriages. Economics & Human Biology 2010, 8:361-372.
5. Cotton S., Small J., Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology 2006, 16:R755-R765.
6. Courtiol A., Raymond M., Godelle B., Ferdy J.-B. Mate choice and human stature: homogamy as a unified framework for understanding mating preferences. Evolution 2010, 64:2189-2203.
7. Courtiol A., Picq S., Godelle B., Raymond M., Ferdy J.-B. From preferred to actual mate characteristics: the case of human body shape. PLoS One 2010, 5. e13010.
8. Diggle P., Heagarty P., Liang K.-Y., Zeger S. Analysis of Longitudinal Data 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2nd edn.
9. Eastwick P.W., Finkel E.J. Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, 94:245-264.
10. Eastwick P.W., Eagly A.H., Finkel E.J., Johnson S.E. Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: a double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011, 101:993-1011.
11. Fawcett T.W., Johstone R.A. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:771-779.
12. Fink B., Neave N., Brewer G., Pawlowski B. Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS): further evidence for an adjustment in relation to own height. Personality and Individual Differences 2007, 43:2249-2257.
13. Finkel E.J., Eastwick P.W. Speed-dating. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2008, 17:193-197.
14. Fowler-Finn K.D., Rodríguez R.L. Experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences: mating assurance in a variable environment. Evolution 2012, 66:459-468.
15. Fowler-Finn K.D., Rodríguez R.L. The evolution of experience-mediated plasticity in mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2012, 25:1855-1863.
16. Gillis J.S., Avis W.E. The male-taller norm in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1980, 6:396-401.
17. Johnstone R.A., Reynolds J.D., Deutsch J.C. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 1996, 50:1382-1391.
18. Kurzban R., Weeden J. HurryDate: mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior 2005, 26:227-244.
19. Kurzban R., Weeden J. Do advertised preferences predict the behavior of speed daters?. Personal Relationships 2007, 14:623-632.
20. Lenton A.P., Francesconi M. Too much of a good thing? Variety is confusing in mate choice. Biology Letters 2011, 7:528-531.
21. Lenton A.P., Fasolo B., Todd P.M. The relationship between number of potential mates and mating skew in humans. Animal Behaviour 2009, 77:55-60.
22. Luo S., Zhang G. What leads to romantic attraction: similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality 2009, 77:933-964.
23. Magrath M.J.L., Komdeur J. Is male care compromised by additional mating opportunity?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2003, 18:424-430.
24. Pawlowski B. Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:709-712.
25. R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2008, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.r-project.org.
26. Re D.E., Perrett D.I. Concordant preferences for actual height and facial cues to height. Personality and Individual Differences 2012, 53:901-906.
27. Reynolds J.D., Gross M.R. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox?. The American Naturalist 1990, 136:230-243.
28. Rusbult C.E., Buunk B.P. Commitment processes in close relationships: an interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1993, 10:175-204.
29. Sear R., Marlowe F.W. How universal are human mate choices? Size does not matter when Hadza foragers are choosing a mate. Biology Letters 2009, 5:606-609.
30. Sorokowski P., Butovskaya M.L. Height preferences in humans may not be universal: evidence from the Datoga people of Tanzania. Body Image 2012, 9:510-516.
31. Spuhler J.N. Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Social Biology 1982, 29:53-66.
32. Stulp G., Verhulst S., Pollet T.V., Nettle D., Buunk A.P. Parental height differences predict the need for an emergency Caesarean section. PLoS One 2011, 6. e20497.
33. Stulp G., Pollet T.V., Verhulst S., Buunk A.P. Acurvilinear effect of height on reproductive success in human males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2012, 66:375-384.
34. Stulp G., Verhulst S., Pollet T.V., Buunk A.P. The effect of female height on reproductive success is negative in Western populations, but more variable in non-Western populations. American Journal of Human Biology 2012, 24:486-494.
35. Stulp G., Kuijper B., Buunk A.P., Pollet T.V., Verhulst S. Intralocus sexual conflict over human height. Biology Letters 2012, 8:976-978.
36. Stulp G., Buunk A.P., Pollet T.V., Nettle D., Verhulst S. Are human mating preferences with respect to height reflected in actual pairings?. PLoS One 2013, 8. e54186.
37. Stulp G., Buunk A.P., Pollet T.V. Women want taller men more than men want shorter women. Personality and Individual Differences 2013, 54:877-883.
38. Todd P.M., Penke L., Fasolo B., Lenton A.P. Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2007, 104:15011-15016.
39. Torres L.A.G.M.M., Martinez F.E., Manço J.C. Correlation between standing height, sitting height, and arm span as an index of pulmonary function in 6-10-year-old children. Pediatric Pulmonology 2003, 36:202-208.
40. Widemo F., Sæther S.A. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1999, 14:26-31.
41. Wong B.B.M., Candolin U. How is female mate choice affected by male competition?. Biological Reviews 2005, 80:559-571.