The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism

By Steven W. Gangestad, Jeffry A. Simpson. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2000

1,722 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/25014111342d5d63846b59242502e0dde4fd7602

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Dominance and Prestige: Dual Strategies for Navigating Social Hierarchies (2016, background): “As a result, people possess the capacity to pursue alternative strategies aimed at satisfying reproductively important motivations (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).”
Sex Differences in Self-reported Infidelity and its Correlates (2007, background): “Males also can (unconsciously, perhaps) choose from several mating strategies (Gangestad and Simpson 2000).”
Pornography, Individual Differences in Risk and Men’s Acceptance of Violence Against Women in a Representative Sample (2011, neutral): “…been used frequently to assess sexual “acting out” (Boislard et al. 2009; Elliott and Morse 1989) and are key dimensions used by some evolutionary psychologists to define a reproductive strategy of relatively high quantity rather than quality investment (Gangestad and Simpson 2000; Ellis 1988).”
Dynamical Evolutionary Psychology: Mapping the Domains of the New Interactionist Paradigm (2002, background): “Similarly, there are chronic individual differences in the probability of adopting a restricted or unrestricted mating strategy (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).”
Disgust and mating strategy (2015, background): “…have typically found either 1) no association between women's physical attractiveness (or proxies thereof) and preferred mating strategy (e.g. Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Landolt, Lalumière, & Quinsey, 1995), or 2) a relationship between women's physical attractiveness and exclusively…”
Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans (2010, background): “Presumably because they are more sexually attractive to women, men of putatively high genetic quality tend to expend more effort acquiring additional mates and less effort investing in mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).”
Who is The Fairest One of All? How Evolution Guides Peer and Media Influences on Female Body Dissatisfaction (2011, background): “Evidence suggests that this problem was partially resolved by utilizing a conditional mating strategy whereby a woman would select a long-term partner on the basis of a willingness to invest and engage in short-term mating with men who evinced markers of good genes (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).”
From Dating to Mating and Relating: Predictors of Initial and Long–Term Outcomes of Speed–Dating in a Community Sample (2011, background): “…but it also depends on (a) one’s sex, (b) whether one pursues shortterm versus long-term mating tactics, and (c) environmental conditions related to survival and need for biparental investment in offspring (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Penke, Todd, Lenton, & Fasolo, 2007).”
TARGET ARTICLE: Evolutionary Foundations of Cultural Variation: Evoked Culture and Mate Preferences (2006, neutral): “Moreover, when women depend less on male contributions, they may be more willing to engage in extramarital relations or, relatedly, be less concerned about exhibiting restrictive sexual attitudes to their mates (e.g., Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Schmitt, 2005).”
Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives ☆ (2008, neutral): “For example, if a partner has qualities that are valuable in both a long-term partner (Buss, 1989; Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and a sexual partner (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Miller, 2000; Singh, 1993), love and desire should co-occur, and the experiences of love and desire positively correlate.”
Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention (2006, background): “Men who display indicators of good genes are highly attractive as sex partners; hence, they can, and often do, pursue a short-term mating strategy that tends to be associated with reduced investment in mates and offspring (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997).”
A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. (2002, background): “…cultures are less clear for the sex-typed evolved dispositions that evolutionary psychologists maintain are expressed contingently depending on the features of current environments that match the environments of evolutionary adaptedness (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).”
Consumer decisions in relationships (2012, neutral): “In recent years, many novel insights have been gained by viewing relationships from an evolutionary perspective (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010).”
Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans (2013, background): “…to the former despite this lower investment because of the higher benefits for associating with high-quality males (e.g. Burley, 1988; Frank, 1988; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Gangestad et al., 2007; Møller & Thornhill, 1998); low-quality males must compensate for their lowmarket value by…”
The Effect of Nonphysical Traits on the Perception of Physical Attractiveness: Three Naturalistic Studies (2004, background): “In particular, individual differences are increasingly being studied in game theoretic terms as alternative social strategies, such as cooperation versus exploitation (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996, 1998) or high-investment versus lowinvestment mating strategies (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).”
Women's preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not by moral or sexual disgust (2010, background): “Attraction to masculinity is a function of the tradeoffs between the benefits of greater genetic health and the costs of lower investment in relationships and children (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Little, Jones, Penton-Voak, Burt & Perrett, 2002).”
The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies (2001, background): “Depending on their own mate value, the local sex-ratio, and other ecological sources of information (see Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), some men and women should pursue frequent short-term mateships, whereas others in different situations are expected to pursue long-term mating strategies.”