Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:06:25.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Individual Differences in Sexual Psychology

from Part II - Middle-Level Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Aurelio José Figueredo  and
Catherine A. Salmon
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

Much of evolutionary psychology has focused on species-typical behavior or sex differences. However, recent attention has turned to considering the role of individual differences in shaping human behavior, in particular in the realm of sexual strategies. While some research still focused broadly on sex differences, there is a growing body of work that examines within-sex differences in sexual strategies. This work includes genetic and environmental influences on individual differences factors including flexible responses to ecological contingencies such as sex ratio and mortality rates. These within-sex individual differences can be divided into directly selected individual differences in mating strategies (genetically influenced biases toward developing longer-term or shorter-term mating relationships), indirectly selected individual differences in mating strategies (variations in mating strategy that might be influenced developmentally by individual differences in strategically relevant traits), indirectly selected individual differences in mating strategies that are influenced developmentally by external environmental contingencies (which could include environmental unpredictability or resource scarcity), and combinations of all three acting concurrently in one individual. This chapter will examine all three options and some of the evidence collected to date on their role.

Keywords

individual differencessociosexualitysexual strategiesdirectly and indirectly selected differences
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 390 - 413
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adajian, T. (2005). On the prototype theory of concepts and the definition of art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63(3), 231–236.Google Scholar
Alger, I., Hooper, P. L., Cox, D., Stieglitz, J., & Kaplan, H. S. (2020). Paternal provisioning results from ecological change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(20), 10746–10754.Google Scholar
Alvergne, A., Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2008). Developmental plasticity of human reproductive development: Effects of early family environment in modern-day France. Physiology and Behavior, 95, 625–632.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. G. (2015). Father absence, childhood stress, and reproductive maturation in South Africa. Human Nature, 26(4), 401–425.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 537–545.Google Scholar
Baker, L. A., Bezdjian, S., & Raine, A. (2006). Behavioral genetics: The science of antisocial behavior. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1–2), 7–46.Google Scholar
Baker, M. D. Jr., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 391–395.Google Scholar
Banai, B., & Pavela, I. (2015). Two-dimensional structure of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory and its personality correlates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
Barbaro, N., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Genetic confounding of the relationship between father absence and age at menarche. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(3), 357–365.Google Scholar
Belsky, J. (2012). The development of human reproductive strategies: Progress and prospects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 310–316.Google Scholar
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62(4), 647–670.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. (1992). Roman polygyny. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(5–6), 309–349.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. (1988). Kipsigis bridewealth payments. In Betzig, L., Borgerhoff-Mulder, M., & Turke, P. W. (Eds.), Human reproductive behaviour (pp. 65–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, G., & Archer, J. (2007). What do people infer from facial attractiveness? Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5(1), 39–49.Google Scholar
Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies: A longitudinal test of an evolutionary model. Human Nature, 20, 25–51.Google Scholar
Brumbach, B. H., Walsh, M., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Sexual restrictedness in adolescence: A life history perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 481–488.Google Scholar
Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate-preference drives mate-choice: Men’s self-rated masculinity predicts their female partner’s preference for masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 1023–1027.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mating strategies. Samdunfsokonemen, 4, 48–58.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134–146.Google Scholar
Chisholm, J. S. (1999). Death, hope and sex: Steps to an evolutionary ecology of mind and morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41(7), 1321–1327.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 127–157.Google Scholar
Copping, L. T., Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (2014). Psychometrics and life history strategy: The structure and validity of the High K Strategy Scale. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 200–222.Google Scholar
de Sousa Campos, L., Otta, E., & de Oliveira Siqueira, J. (2002). Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analyses and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(5), 395–406.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Johnson, W., & Houlihan, L. M. (2009). Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Human Genetics, 126(1), 215–232.Google Scholar
Deary, I .J., Lawn, M., & Bartholomew, D. J. (2008). A conversation between Charles Spearman, Godfrey Thomson, and Edward L. Thorndike: The International Examinations Inquiry Meetings 1931–1938. History of Psychology, 11(3), 163.Google Scholar
DelPriore, D. J., Schlomer, G. L., & Ellis, B. J. (2017). Impact of fathers on parental monitoring of daughters and their affiliation with sexually promiscuous peers: A genetically and environmentally controlled sibling study. Developmental Psychology, 53(7), 1330.Google Scholar
Draper, P., & Harpending, H. (1982). Father absence and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38(3), 255–273.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M., & Waynforth, D. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: Evidence from “Lonely Hearts” advertisements. Behaviour, 132(9–10), 755–779.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Mate value and mate preferences: An investigation into decisions made with and without constraints. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 835–839.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., Pettit, G. S., & Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74(3), 801–821.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A. J., Gray, P., Griskevicius, V., … & Wilson, D. S. (2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 598–623.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204–268.Google Scholar
Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Smith, M. L., Moore, F. R., DeBruine, L. M., Cornwell, R. E., … Perrett, D. I. (2006). Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49(2), 215–222.Google Scholar
Fernandes, H. B. F., Woodley, M. A., Hutz, C. S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). The strength of associations among sexual strategy traits: Variations as a function of life history speed. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 275–283.Google Scholar
Fernandes, H. B. F., Woodley, M. A., Hutz, C. S., & Kruger, D. J. (2013). Strategic differentiation-integration effort in the context of sexual strategies: A cross-national perspective. Oral presentation. Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Cabeza de Baca, T., Black, C. J., Garcia, R. A., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wolf, P. S. A., & Woodley of Menie, M. A. (2015). Methodologically sound: Evaluating the psychometric approach to the assessment of human life history [Reply to Copping, Campbell, and Muncer, 2014]. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 299–338.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. M., Kauffman, I. A., Weil, E., & Gladden, P. R. (2012). The interplay of behavioral dispositions and cognitive abilities: Sociosexual orientation, emotional intelligence, executive functions, and life history strategy. Temas em Psicologia, 20(1), 81–100.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Gladden, P. R., Sisco, M. M., Patch, E. A., & Jones, D. N. (2015). The unholy trinity: The Dark Triad, sexual coercion, and Brunswik-Symmetry. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 435–454.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Hammond, K. R., & McKiernan, E. C. (2006). A Brunswikian evolutionary developmental theory of preparedness and plasticity. Intelligence, 34(2), 211–227.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2010). Aggression, risk-taking, and alternative life history strategies: The behavioral ecology of social deviance. In Frias-Armenta, M. & Corral-Verdugo, V. (Eds.), Bio-psycho-social perspectives on interpersonal violence (pp. 3–28). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Jacobs, W. J., Gladden, P. R., Bianchi, J., Patch, E. A., Phillip, K. S.,… Li, N. P. (2018). Intimate partner violence, interpersonal aggression, and life history strategy. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., & Rushton, J. P. (2009). Evidence for shared genetic dominance between the general factor of personality, mental and physical health, and life history traits. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12(6), 555–563.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., King, J. E., & Jacobs, W. J. (2005). Evolutionary personality psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 851–877). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Woodley, M. A., Brown, S. D., & Ross, K. C. (2013). Multiple successful tests of the strategic differentiation-integration effort (SD-IE) hypothesis. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(4), 361–383.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Woodley of Menie, M. A., & Jacobs, W. J. (2015). The evolutionary psychology of the general factor of personality: A hierarchical life history model. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 943–967). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In Simpson, J. A. & Kenrick, D. T. (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 169–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza de Baca, T., Black, C. J., Sotomayor-Peterson, M., Smith-Castro, V., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). Measures of domain-specific resource allocations in life history strategy: Indicators of a latent common factor or ordered developmental sequence? Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 7(1), 23–51.Google Scholar
Gaydosh, L., Belsky, D. W., Domingue, B. W., Boardman, J. D., & Harris, K. M. (2017). Father absence and accelerated reproductive development. BioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/123711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Giosan, C. (2006). High-K strategy scale: A measure of the high-K independent criterion of fitness. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 394–405.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (2005). Continuous parameter estimation model: Expanding the standard statistical paradigm. Journal of the Science Faculty of Chiang Mai University, 32, 11–21.Google Scholar
Grammer, K. (1992). Variations on a theme: Age dependent mate selection in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 100–102.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2011). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 241–254.Google Scholar
Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Hilton, N. Z., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (2007). Coercive and precocious sexuality as a fundamental aspect of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Hawkes, K., & Paine, R. R. (2006). The evolution of life histories. Santa Fe, CA: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (2017). Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging people. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. (2005). Homicide by men in Japan, and its relationship to age, resources and risk taking. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(4), 332–343.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.Google Scholar
Johansson, A., Santtila, P., Harlaar, N., von der Pahlen, B., Witting, K., Ålgars, M., … & Sandnabba, N. K. (2008). Genetic effects on male sexual coercion. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 34(2), 190–202.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Luévano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180–184.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate-selection and the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 759–763.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 68–95). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2006). The adaptive functions of self-evaluative psychological mechanisms. In Kernis, M. H. (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives (pp. 334–339). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kraemer, S. (2000). The fragile male. British Medical Journal, 321(7276), 1609–1612.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M., & Jobling, I. (2003). Proper and dark heroes as DADS and CADS. Human Nature, 14, 305–317.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Nesse, R. M. (2004). Sexual selection and the male:female mortality ratio. Evolutionary Psychology, 2(1), 66–85.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Nesse, R. M. (2006). An evolutionary life-history framework for understanding sex differences in human mortality rates. Human Nature, 17(1), 74–97.Google Scholar
Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1996). Sexual deviance, antisociality, mating effort, and the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(1), 33–48.Google Scholar
Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 631–651.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Evolution and individual differences in the perception of attractiveness: How cyclic hormonal changes and self-perceived attractiveness influence female preferences for male faces. In Rhodes, G. & Zebrowitz, L. A. (Eds.), Advances in visual cognition, Vol. 1. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 59–90). New York, NY: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Malamuth, N. M. (1996). The confluence model of sexual aggression: Feminist and evolutionary perspectives. In Buss, D. M. & Malamuth, N. M. (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 269–295). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malamuth, N. M. (1998). The confluence model as an organizing framework for research on sexually aggressive men: Risk moderators, imagined aggression, and pornography consumption. In Green, R. G. & Donnerstein, E. (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 229–245). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Manson, J. H., Chua, K. J., & Lukaszewski, A. W. (2020). The structure of the Mini-K and K-SF-42. Human Nature, 31, 322–340.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246(5427), 15–18.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Michalski, R. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2002). Birth order and sexual strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 661–667.Google Scholar
Mikach, S. M., & Bailey, J. M. (1999). What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(3), 141–150.Google Scholar
Miner, E. J., Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). It’s not all about her: Men’s mate value and mate retention. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 214–218.Google Scholar
Monroe, P. (Ed.). (1931). Conference on examinations. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Moss, J. H., & Maner, J. K. (2016). Biased sex ratios influence fundamental aspects of human mating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 72–80.Google Scholar
Mustanski, B. S., Viken, R. J., Kaprio, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Rose, R. J. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on pubertal development: Longitudinal data from Finnish twins at ages 11 and 14. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1188–1198.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29–51.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (1999). Withholding age as putative deception in mate search tactics. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(1), 53–69.Google Scholar
Pedersen, F. A. (1991). Secular trends in human sex ratios. Human Nature, 2(3), 271–291.Google Scholar
Perusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267–322.Google Scholar
Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. R. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness, symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cultural Research, 47(2), 162–197.Google Scholar
Quinlan, R. J. (2010). Extrinsic mortality effects on reproductive strategies in a Caribbean community. Human Nature, 21(2), 124–139.Google Scholar
Reeve, S. D., Kelly, K. M., & Welling, L. L. (2017). The effect of mate value feedback on women’s mating aspirations and mate preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 77–82.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. G., Hummer, R. A., & Nam, C. B. (2000). Living and dying in the USA: Behavioral, health, and social differentials of adult mortality. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. A. (1999). On the impact of sex and birth order on contact with kin. Human Nature, 10(2), 183–197.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. (2003). Birth order and relationships. Human Nature, 14(1), 73–88.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. A., & Daly, M. (1998). Birth order and familial sentiment: Middleborns are different. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(5), 299–312.Google Scholar
Salmon, C., Townsend, J. M., & Hehman, J. (2016). Casual sex and college students: Sex differences and the impact of father absence. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(4), 254–261.Google Scholar
Schacht, R., & Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. (2015). Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. Royal Society Open Science, 2(1), 140402.Google Scholar
Schermer, J. A., & Jones, D. N. (2020). The behavioral genetics of the dark triad core versus unique trait components: A pilot study. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109701.Google Scholar
Schlomer, G. L., & Cho, H. J. (2017). Genetic and environmental contributions to age at menarche: Interactive effects of father absence and LIN28B. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6), 761–769.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85–104.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Alves, I. C. B., Anderson, C. A., Angelini, A. L., … & Kökény, T. (2017). Narcissism and the strategic pursuit of short-term mating: Universal links across 11 world regions of the International Sexuality Description Project-2. Psihologijske Teme, 26(1), 89–137.Google Scholar
Semenyna, S. W., Belu, C. F., Vasey, P. L., & Honey, P. L. (2018). Not straight and not straightforward: The relationships between sexual orientation, sociosexuality, and dark triad traits in women. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(1), 24–37.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Stone, E. A., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Sex ratio and mate preferences: A cross‐cultural investigation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 288–296.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Szepsenwol, O., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Young, E. S., Fleck, C., & Jones, R. E. (2017). The effect of predictable early childhood environments on sociosexuality in early adulthood. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 131–145.Google Scholar
Tadinac, M., & Hromatko, I. (2007). Own mate value and relative importance of a potential mate’s qualities. Studia Psychologica, 49(3), 251–264.Google Scholar
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, 104(38), 15011–15016.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17–67.Google Scholar
Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2009). Meeting your match: How attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 685–697.Google Scholar
vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 445–452.Google Scholar
Voland, E., & Engel, C. (1990). Female choice in humans: A conditional mate selection strategy of the Krummhörn women (Germany, 1720–1874). Ethology, 84(2), 144–154.Google Scholar
von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223–2232.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Qu, Y., Hou, B., & Tian, Q. (2019). What makes her a material girl? The influence of childhood economic background and sex ratio on female preference for male resource availability. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(1), 1474704919833720.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Wang, S., & Hou, B. (2020). The influence of sex ratio and childhood harshness on male short-term mating preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110100.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. D., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). Cues to the sex ratio of the local population influence women’s preferences for facial symmetry. Animal Behaviour, 83(2), 545–553.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917–922.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., Graber, J. A., Gesselman, A. N., Crosier, B. S., & Schember, T. O. (2014). A life history theory of father absence and menarche: A meta-analysis. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(2), 273–394.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westerlund, M., Santtila, P., Johansson, A., Varjonen, M., Witting, K., Jern, P., … Sandnabba, N. K. (2010). Does unrestricted sociosexual behaviour have a shared genetic basis with sexual coercion? Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(1–2), 5–23.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Lethal confrontational violence among young men. In Bell, N. J. & Bell, R. W. (Eds.), Adolescent risk taking (pp. 84–106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1997). Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. British Medical Journal, 314, 1271–1274.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1988). Multivariate reliability theory: Principles of symmetry and successful validation strategies. In Nesselroade, J. R. & Cattell, R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 505–560). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1990). Brunswik symmetry and the conception of the five data boxes: A framework concept for comprehensive evaluation research. Journal for Educational Psychology, 4(4), 241–251.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1991). Meta-analysis and Brunswik symmetry. In Albrecht, G., Otto, H.-U., Karstedt-Henke, S., & Böllert, K. (Eds.), Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence, 11. Social prevention and the social sciences: Theoretical controversies, research problems, and evaluation strategies (pp. 381–393). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W., & Süß, H.-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 77–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Yost, M. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2006). Gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality: An examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, and aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 163–173.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×