The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs.

By Norman P. Li, Michael C. Bailey, D. Kenrick. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002

972 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Social exchange and evolutionary models of mate selection incorporate economic assumptions but have not considered a key distinction between necessities and luxuries. This distinction can clarify an apparent paradox: Status and attractiveness, though emphasized by many researchers, are not typically rated highly by research participants. Three studies supported the hypothesis that women and men first ensure sufficient levels of necessities in potential mates before considering many other characteristics rated as more important in prior surveys. In Studies 1 and 2, participants designed ideal long-term mates, purchasing various characteristics with 3 different budgets. Study 3 used a mate-screening paradigm and showed that people inquire 1st about hypothesized necessities. Physical attractiveness was a necessity to men, status and resources were necessities to women, and kindness and intelligence were necessities to both.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac8b4d80ae733ec47f697b4ece632c6cc749d138

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

Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy (2008, background): “, youth), rather than characteristics that might be signaled by risk-taking (Li et al., 2002).”
Components of self-perceived mate value. (2008, background): “Furthermore, sociality is a known and documented mate preference (Buss, 1989; Li, Kenrick, Bailey, & Linsenmeier, 2002 ).”
Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model (2011, methodology): “Consistent with this mate preference priority model, a budget allocation methodology revealed that while kindness was highly valued by both sexes, women prioritized resources and social status and men prioritized physical attractiveness in long-term relationship partners (Li, 2007; Li et al., 2002).”
Mate choice for cognitive traits: a review of the evidence in nonhuman vertebrates (2011, background): “Furthermore, women prefer both more intelligent and more symmetric men (Buss 1989; Gangestad et al. 1994; Thornhill and Gangestad 1999; Li et al. 2002; Brown et al. 2005; Prokosch et al. 2009).”
HurryDate: Mate preferences in action (2005, background): “Taken together, these results suggest a continued emphasis not on assortment, but rather on building a more cohesive picture of the attributes of individuals that make them more desirable in the mating market ( Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Pawlowski & Dunbar, 1999a) and how these featu”
Adaptive attentional attunement: evidence for mating-related perceptual bias (2007, background): “…psychological processes, physical attractiveness plays a relatively stronger role in shaping mating-related judgments, preferences, and choices about females than it does about males (e.g., Gutierres, Kenrick, & Partch, 1999; Kenrick et al., 1994; Li et al., 2002; Tooke & Camire, 1991).”
Attractive Women Want it All: Good Genes, Economic Investment, Parenting Proclivities, and Emotional Commitment1 (2008, background): “Given limited mating budgets, men view physical attractiveness as a “necessity” rather than a “luxury” in mating ( Li, Bailey, Kenrick, and Linsemeier, 2002 ).”
The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives (2013, background): “Moreover, while our data allow us to examine variation in mating preferences, we do not have the necessary information to assess how individuals prioritize the various characteristics they seek in a potential mate (see, e.g., Li et al. 2002).”
Women's Sexual Strategies: The Evolution of Long-Term Bonds and Extrapair Sex (2006, background): “Li and colleagues interpreted this pattern as indicating that the ability to provide resources is a "necessity" in mate choice, whereas other characterist ics are relative luxuries (Li et al., 2002).”
Testosterone and domain-specific risk: Digit ratios (2D:4D and rel2) as predictors of recreational, financial, and social risk-taking behaviors (2011, background): “physical attractiveness, youth), rather than traits associated with risktaking (Buss, 1989; Li et al., 2002).”
Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: a preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity (2005, background): “Because a womans physical attractiveness indexes her reproductive value and fertility (Singh, 1993; Symons, 1979), physically attractive women are desired partners for long-term, short-term, and extra-pair mateships (Buss, 1989; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Regan”
Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior (2014, background): “It has been established that mate preferences can fluctuate dynamically based upon contextual cues (e.g., LI et al. 2002) including one’s own value as a mate (BUSS 2008).”