Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences

doi:10.1073/pnas.0705290104

Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences

*Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition and
^¶International Max Planck Research School LIFE, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany;
^†Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, 1101 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405;
^§Department of Psychology, Humboldt University, Rudower Chaussee 18, 12489 Berlin, Germany;
^‖Operational Research Group, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom; and
**Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, United Kingdom

Edited by Gordon H. Orians, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved July 23, 2007 (received for review June 7, 2007)

Abstract

Based on undergraduates' self-reports of mate preferences for various traits and self-perceptions of their own levels on those traits, Buston and Emlen [Buston PM, Emlen ST (2003) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8805–8810] concluded that modern human mate choices do not reflect predictions of tradeoffs from evolutionary theory but instead follow a “likes-attract” pattern, where people choose mates who match their self-perceptions. However, reported preferences need not correspond to actual mate choices, which are more relevant from an evolutionary perspective. In a study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event, we were largely able to replicate Buston and Emlen's self-report results in a pre-event questionnaire, but we found that the stated preferences did not predict actual choices made during the speed-dates. Instead, men chose women based on their physical attractiveness, whereas women, who were generally much more discriminating than men, chose men whose overall desirability as a mate matched the women's self-perceived physical attractiveness. Unlike the cognitive processes that Buston and Emlen inferred from self-reports, this pattern of results from actual mate choices is very much in line with the evolutionary predictions of parental investment theory.

Footnotes

^‡To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: pmtodd{at}indiana.edu
Author contributions: P.M.T., L.P., B.F., and A.P.L. designed research; P.M.T., L.P., B.F., and A.P.L. performed research; L.P. analyzed data; and P.M.T. and L.P. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
↵ †† We did not ask participants about the fourth domain, sexual fidelity, because of concerns that the questions could be misinterpreted in the speed-dating context and could affect the honesty of the other responses.
↵ ‡‡ These ratings were highly correlated (r = 0.56, P < 0.001), justifying this averaging into an aggregate score (for men: M = 5.6, SD = 1.2; for women: M = 6.0, SD = 1.4).
↵ §§ One participant submitted a hard copy of the prequestionnaire because of limited Internet access.
↵ ¶¶ When results were analyzed in terms of importance weights instead, they did not change in any substantial way.