Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why.

By Norman P. Li, D. Kenrick. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006

632 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Are there sex differences in criteria for sexual relationships? The answer depends on what question a researcher asks. Data suggest that, whereas the sexes differ in whether they will enter short-term sexual relationships, they are more similar in what they prioritize in partners for such relationships. However, additional data and context of other findings and theory suggest different underlying reasons. In Studies 1 and 2, men and women were given varying "mate budgets" to design short-term mates and were asked whether they would actually mate with constructed partners. Study 3 used a mate-screening paradigm. Whereas women have been found to prioritize status in long-term mates, they instead (like men) prioritize physical attractiveness much like an economic necessity in short-term mates. Both sexes also show evidence of favoring well-rounded long- and short-term mates when given the chance. In Studies 4 and 5, participants report reasons for having casual sex and what they find physically attractive. For women, results generally support a good genes account of short-term mating, as per strategic pluralism theory (S. W. Gangestad & J. A. Simpson, 2000). Discussion addresses broader theoretical implications for mate preference, and the link between method and theory in examining social decision processes.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Marketing, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9a5b3f24d1e17cd675cc95d5ebcf6cee8a4b4811

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Marketing

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

People With Dark Personalities Tend to Create a Physically Attractive Veneer (2013, background): “…dark triad, personality Physical attractiveness is important in many life domains (Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005), but it is especially important in relationship-initiation contexts where first impressions are especially relevant (Li & Kenrick, 2006; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966).”
Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: the evolved psychology of relationship maintenance (2008, neutral): “Evolutionary studies of mate selection suggest that both men and women tend to place a premium on the physical attractiveness of extrapair relationship partners (Greiling & Buss, 2000; Haselton & Gangestad, 2006; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Scheib, 2001).”
How Sexy are Sexist Men? Women’s Perception of Male Response Profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (2010, background): “Viewed from an evolutionary perspective (e.g., Buss and Schmitt 1993), one may conclude that displaying benevolent sexist behavior may have adaptive advantages for men in terms of both long-term and short-term mating strategies (see also Li and Kenrick 2006 ).”
Adaptive attentional attunement: evidence for mating-related perceptual bias (2007, background): “E-mail address: maner@psy.fsu.edu (J.K. Maner). overt mating preferences and choices (e.g., Buss, 1989; Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, & Stone, 2001; Li & Kenrick, 2006).”
Meet the parents: Parent-offspring convergence and divergence in mate preferences (2011, neutral): “…based on individual differences and context (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002; Kenrick, Neuberg, Zierk, & Krones, 1994; Li & Kenrick, 2006), how they show temporal stability over time (Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005), and how some remain consistent over generations…”
The Faces of Success: Beauty and Ugliness Premiums in e-Commerce Platforms (2020, background): “Although attractiveness is valued in both men and women, men are more responsive to the physical attractiveness of women (Li and Kenrick 2006).”
Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: when romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. (2007, methodology): “For example, women indicate that economic resources in a man are a necessity, whereas men appraise economic resources in a woman as a luxury (Li et al., 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006 ).”
The dark side of love: Love styles and the Dark Triad (2010, background): “…relationships (e.g., Campbell & Foster, 2002; Foster, Shrira, & Campbell, 2006; Jonason et al., 2009) and short-term mating is primarily driven by the physical attractiveness of the partner (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006), therefore, we expect the Dark Triad to be manifested in an eros love style.”
Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model (2011, methodology): “For short-term mates, both sexes have been hypothesized to place high value on physical attractiveness (Buss & Schmitt, 1993), though for different reasons (Li & Kenrick, 2006).”
Intelligence and mate choice: intelligent men are always appealing (2009, background): “…short-term relationships, women will bias their preferences toward traits indicative of a mate's ability to provide protection and/or resources that can be transferred to them immediately (e.g., Greiling & Buss, 2000; Hill & Hurtado, 1996; Hrdy, 1997; Li & Kenrick, 2006).”
Mate-selection and the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment (2011, methodology): “To measure mate preferences and standards, we used a set of traits from previous mate preference papers (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Li, Valentine, & Patel, 2011) – social level, creativity, kindness, liveliness, and physical attractiveness (presented in that…”
Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism (2011, background): “…(whereas women increase selectivity for physical attractiveness) in short-term mating contexts Kenrick et al. 1990; Kenrick et al. 1993; Li et al. 2002; Li and Kenrick 2006; Regan 1998a, 1998b; Regan & Berscheid, 1997; Regan et al., 2000; Simpson & Gangestad, 1992; Stewart et al., 2000; Wiederman…”