Mate value is an important concept in mate choice research although its operationalization and understanding are limited. Here, we reviewed and evaluated previously established conceptual and methodological approaches measuring mate value and presented original research using individual differences in how people view themselves as a face-valid proxy for mate value in long- and short-term contexts. In data from 41 nations (N = 3895, Mage = 24.71, 63% women, 47% single), we tested sex, age, and relationship status effects on self-perceived mate desirability, along with individual differences in the Dark Triad traits, life history strategies, peer-based comparison of desirability, and self-reported mating success. Both sexes indicated more short-term than long-term mate desirability; however, men reported more long-term mate desirability than women, whereas women reported more short-term mate desirability than men. Further, individuals who were in a committed relationship felt more desirable than those who were not. Concerning the cross-sectional stability of mate desirability across the lifespan, in men, short- and long-term desirability rose to the age of 40 and 50, respectively, and decreased afterward. In women, short-term desirability rose to the age of 38 and decreased afterward, whereas long-term desirability remained stable over time. Our results suggest that measuring long- and short-term self-perceived mate desirability reveals predictable correlates.

Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam Netherlands

Department of Communication Sciences University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium

Department of Evolutionary Anthropology University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Experimental Psychology University of Sao Paulo Sao Paulo Brazil

Department of General Psychology University of Padua Via Venezia 12 35131 Padua PD Italy

Department of Psychology Saint Mary's University Halifax Canada

Department of Work and Social Psychology Maastricht University Maastricht Netherlands

Faculty of Arts Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Faculty of Biology University of Bucharest Bucharest Romania

Faculty of Humanities Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Faculty of Humanities University of Santiago of Chile Santiago Chile

Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI USA

Institute of Population Health University of Liverpool Liverpool UK

Institute of Psychology Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University Warsaw Poland

Kinsey Institute Indiana University Bloomington IN USA

School of Business and Economics Management and Organisation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Arnocky S. Self-perceived mate value, facial attractiveness, and mate preferences: Do desirable men want it all? Evolutionary Psychology. 2018;16:1474704918763271. doi: 10.1177/1474704918763271. PubMed DOI PMC

Bongard S, Schulz I, Studenroth KU, Frankenberg E. Attractiveness ratings for musicians and non-musicians: An evolutionary-psychology perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:2627. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02627. PubMed DOI PMC

Borráz-León JI, Rantala MJ. Does the Dark Triad predict self-perceived attractiveness, mate value, and number of sexual partners both in men and women? Personality and Individual Differences. 2021;168:110341. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110341. DOI

Brase GL, Dillon MH. Digging Deeper into the relationship between self-esteem and mate value. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022;185:111219. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111219. DOI

Brase GL, Guy EC. The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004;36:471–484. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X. DOI

Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970;1:185–216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301. DOI

Buss DM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1989;12:1–14. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992. DOI

Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review. 1993;100:204–232. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204. PubMed DOI

Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology. 2019;70:77–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408. PubMed DOI

Buss DM, Shackelford TK. Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology. 2008;6:147470490800600116. doi: 10.1177/147470490800600116. DOI

Campbell L, Wilbur CJ. Are the traits we prefer in potential mates the traits they value in themselves?: An analysis of sex differences in the self-concept. Self and Identity. 2009;8:418–446. doi: 10.1080/15298860802505434. DOI

Clark AP. Self-perceived attractiveness and masculinization predict women's sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2004;25:113–124. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00085-0. DOI

Conroy-Beam D. Euclidean mate value and power of choice on the mating market. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2017;44:252–264. doi: 10.1177/0146167217739262. PubMed DOI

Conroy-Beam D, Buss DM, Asao K, Sorokowska A, Sorokowski P, Aavik T, Akello G, Alhabahba MM, Alm C, Amjad N, Anjum A. Contrasting computational models of mate preference integration across 45 countries. Scientific Reports. 2019;9:1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52748-8. PubMed DOI PMC

Conroy-Beam D, Roney JR, Lukaszewski AW, Buss DM, Asao K, Sorokowska A, Sorokowsk A, Aavik T, Akello G, Alhabahba MM, Alm C, Amjad N, Anjum A, Atama CS, Duyar DA, Ayebare R, Batres C, Bendixen R, Bensafia A, Bertoni A, Bizumic B, Boussena M, Butovskaya M, Can S, Cantarero K, Carrier A, Cetinkaya H, Croy I, Cueto RM, Czub M, Donato S, Dronova D, Durav S, Duya I, Ertugrul B, Espinosa A, Estevan I, Sofia Esteves C, Fang L, Frackowiak T, Garduño TC, González KU, Guemaz F, Gyuris P, Halamová M, Herak I, Horvat M, Hromatko I, Hui C-M, Iafrat R, Jaafar JL, Jiang F, Kafetsios K, Kavčič T, Kennair LEO, Kervyn N, Ha TTK, Khilji IM, Köbis NC, Lan HM, Láng A, Lennard GR, León E, Lindholm T, Linh TT, Lopez G, Van Luot N, Mailhos A, Manesi Z, Martinez R, McKerchar SL, Meskóa N, Misra G, Monaghan C, Mora EC, Moya-Garófano A, Musil B, Natividade JC, Niemczyk A, Nizharadze G, Oberzaucher E, Oleszkiewicz A, Omar-Fauzee MS, Onyishi IE, Özener B, Pagani AF, Pakalniskiene V, Parise M, Pazhoohi F, Pisanski A, Pisansk K, Ponciano E, Popa C, Prokop P, Rizwan M, Sainz M, Salkičević S, Sargautyte R, Sarmány-Schulle I, Schmehl S, Sharad S, Siddiquibr RS, Simonetti F, Stoyanova SY, Tadinac M, Correa Varella MA, Vauclair C-M, Vega LD, Widarini DW, Yoo G, Zaťkov M, Zupančič M. Assortative mating and the evolution of desirability covariation. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2019;40:479–491. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.06.003. DOI

Csajbók Z, Berkics M. Factor, factor, on the whole, who's the best fitting of all?: Factors of mate preferences in a large sample. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;114:92–102. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.044. DOI

Csajbók Z, Berkics M. Seven deadly sins of potential romantic partners: The dealbreakers of mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022;186:111334. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111334. DOI

Csajbók Z, Havlíček J, Demetrovics Z, Berkics M. Self-perceived mate value is poorly predicted by demographic variables. Evolutionary Psychology. 2019;17:1474704919829037. doi: 10.1177/1474704919829037. PubMed DOI PMC

Csajbók Z, White KP, Jonason PK. Six “red flags” in relationships: From being dangerous to gross and being apathetic to unmotivated. Personality and Individual Differences. 2023;204:112048. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.112048. DOI

Del Giudice M, Gangestad SW, Kaplan HS. Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In: Buss DM, editor. The handbook of evolutionary psychology: Foundations. Wiley; 2016. pp. 88–114.

Deng Y, Zheng Y. Mate-choice copying in single and coupled women: The influence of mate acceptance and mate rejection decisions of other women. Evolutionary Psychology. 2015;13:147470491501300106. doi: 10.1177/147470491501300106. PubMed DOI

Dollinger SJ, Malmquist D. Reliability and validity of single-item self-reports: With special relevance to college students' alcohol use, religiosity, study, and social life. Journal of General Psychology. 2009;136:231–242. doi: 10.3200/GENP.136.3.231-242. PubMed DOI

Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ. The mate value scale. Personality and Individual Differences. 2014;64:72–77. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005. DOI

Eisinga R, Grotenhuis MT, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health. 2013;58:637–642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3. PubMed DOI

Ellis BJ, Kelley HH. The pairing game: A classroom demonstration of the matching phenomenon. Teaching of Psychology. 1999;26:118–121. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top2602_8. DOI

Feinberg DR. Are human faces and voices ornaments signaling common underlying cues to mate value? Evolutionary Anthropology. 2008;17:112–118. doi: 10.1002/evan.20166. DOI

Felmlee DH. From appealing to appalling: Disenchantment with a romantic partner. Sociological Perspectives. 2001;44:263–280. doi: 10.2307/1389707. DOI

Fernandez AM, Muñoz-Reyes JA, Dufey M. BMI, age, mate value, and intrasexual competition in Chilean women. Current Psychology. 2014;33:435–450. doi: 10.1007/s12144-014-9221-x. DOI

Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 1954;7:117–140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202. DOI

Figueredo AJ, Wolf PSA. Assortative pairing and life history strategy. Human Nature. 2009;20:317–330. doi: 10.1007/s12110-009-9068-2. DOI

Figueredo AJ, Wolf PSA, Gladden PR, Olderbak SG, Andrzejczak DJ, Jacobs WJ. Ecological approaches to personality. In: Buss DM, Hawley P, editors. The evolution of personality and individual differences. Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 210–239.

Fisher, M.L. (2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, S283-S285. PubMed PMC

Fisher ML, Cox A, Bennett S, Gavric D. Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology. 2008;2:156–168. doi: 10.1037/h0099347. DOI

Fletcher GJO, Simpson JA, Thomas G, Giles L. Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;76:72–89. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72. PubMed DOI

Fletcher GJO, Tither JM, O’Loughlin C, Friesen M, Overall N. Warm and homely or cold and beautiful?: Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2004;30:659–672. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262847. PubMed DOI

Goodwin R, Marshall T, Fülöp M, Adonu J, Spiewak S, Neto F, Hernandez Plaza S. Mate value and self-esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e36106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036106. PubMed DOI PMC

Grijalva E, Newman DA, Tay L, Donnellan MB, Harms PD, Robins RW, Yan T. Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2015;141:261–310. doi: 10.1037/a0038231. PubMed DOI

Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2010;33:61–83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. PubMed DOI

Hertler, S.C., Figueredo, A.J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Fernandes, H.B. (2018). Life history evolution: A biological meta-theory for the social sciences. Springer.

James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. An introduction to statistical learning. Springer; 2013.

Jonason PK, Webster GD. The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment. 2010;22:420–432. doi: 10.1037/a0019265. PubMed DOI

Jonason PK, Betes SL, Li NP. Solving mate shortages: Lowering standards, traveling farther, and abstaining. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. 2020;14:160–172. doi: 10.1037/ebs0000174. DOI

Jonason PK, Garcia J, Webster GD, Li NP, Fisher H. Relationship dealbreakers: What individuals do not want in a mate. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin. 2015;41:1697–1711. doi: 10.1177/0146167215609064. PubMed DOI

Jonason PK, Luoto S. The dark side of the rainbow: Homosexuals and bisexuals have higher Dark Triad traits than heterosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021;181:111040. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111040. DOI

Jonason PK, Marsh K, Dib O, Plush D, Doszpot M, Fung E, Crimmins K, Drapski M, Di Pietro K. Is smart sexy?: Examining the role of relative intelligence in mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019;139:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.009. DOI

Kavanagh PS, Robins SC, Ellis BJ. The mating sociometer: A regulatory mechanism for mating aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2010;99:120–132. doi: 10.1037/a0018188. PubMed DOI

Kirkpatrick LA, Waugh CE, Valencia A, Webster GD. The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002;82(5):756–767. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.756. PubMed DOI

Kirsner BR, Figueredo AJ, Jacobs WJ. Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2003;75:131–148. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00048-4. PubMed DOI

Kruger DJ. Brief self-report scales assessing life history dimensions of mating and parenting effort. Evolutionary Psychology. 2017;15:1–10. doi: 10.1177/1474704916673840. PubMed DOI PMC

Landolt MA, Lalumière ML, Quinsey VL. Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology. 1995;16:3–23. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-V. DOI

Leary MR, Baumeister RF. The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2000;32:1–62. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9. DOI

Li NP, Kenrick DT. Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006;90:468–489. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468. PubMed DOI

Li NP, Yong JC, Tov W, Sng O, Fletcher GJ, Valentine KA, Jiang YF, Balliet D. Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2013;105:757–776. doi: 10.1037/a0033777. PubMed DOI

Lidborg LH, Cross CP, Boothroyd LG. A meta-analysis of the association between male dimorphism and fitness outcomes in humans. eLife. 2022;11:e65031. doi: 10.7554/eLife.65031. PubMed DOI PMC

Luo S. Assortative mating and couple similarity: Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2017;11:e12337. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12337. DOI

Maas CJ, Hox JJ. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology. 2005;1:86–92. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86. DOI

Maestripieri D, Henry A, Nickels N. Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2017;40:e19. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X16000340. PubMed DOI

Mafra AL, Lopes FA. “Am I good enough for you?”: Features related to self-perception and self-esteem of Brazilians from different socioeconomic status. Psychology. 2014;5:653–663. doi: 10.4236/psych.2014.57077. DOI

Miller GF, Todd PM. Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1998;2:190–198. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01169-3. PubMed DOI

Montoya RM. I'm hot, so I'd say you're not: The influence of objective physical attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2008;34:1315–1331. doi: 10.1177/0146167208320387. PubMed DOI

Muris P, Merckelbach H, Otgaar H, Meijer E. The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2017;12:183–204. doi: 10.1177/1745691616666070. PubMed DOI

Noë R, Hammerstein P. Biological markets. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 1995;10:336–339. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89123-5. PubMed DOI

Pass JA, Lindenberg SM, Park JH. All you need is love: Is the sociometer especially sensitive to one's mating capacity? European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010;40:221–234. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.619. DOI

Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI. Withholding age as putative deception in mate search tactics. Evolution and Human Behavior. 1999;20:53–69. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00038-5. DOI

Pereira KJ, da Silva CSA, Havlíček J, Kleisner K, Varella MAC, Pavlovič O, Valentova JV. Femininity-masculinity and attractiveness–Associations between self-ratings, third-party ratings, and objective measures. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019;147:166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.033. DOI

Pereira KJ, David VF, Varella MAC, Valentova JV. Environmental threat influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in male and female faces but not voices or dances. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2020;41:303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.05.003. DOI

Pflüger LS, Oberzaucher E, Katina S, Holzleitner IJ, Grammer K. Cues to fertility: Perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2012;33:708–714. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.005. DOI

Potarca G, Mills M, van Duijn M. The choices and constraints of secondary singles: Willingness to stepparent among divorced online daters across Europe. Journal of Family Issues. 2017;38:1443–1470. doi: 10.1177/0192513X16631017. DOI

Rad MS, Martingano AJ, Ginges J. Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115:11401–11405. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1721165115. PubMed DOI PMC

Regan PC. What if you can't get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24:1294–1303. doi: 10.1177/01461672982412004. DOI

Schmitt DP, Alcalay L, Allik J, et al. Narcissism and the strategic pursuit of short-term mating: Universal links across 11 world regions of the International Sexuality Description Project-2. Psihologijske Teme. 2017;26:89–137. doi: 10.31820/pt.26.1.5. DOI

Sela Y, Mogilski JK, Shackelford TK, Zeigler-Hill V, Fink B. Mate value discrepancy and mate retention behaviors of self and partner. Journal of Personality. 2017;85:730–740. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12281. PubMed DOI

Singh D. Female mate value at a glance: Relationship of waist-to-hip ratio to health, fecundity and attractiveness. Neuroendocrinology Letters. 2002;23:81–91. PubMed

Štěrbová Z, Valentova J. Influence of homogamy, complementarity, and sexual imprinting on mate choice. L'anthropologie. 2012;50:47–60.

Surbey MK, Brice GR. Enhancement of self-perceived mate value precedes a shift in men’s preferred mating strategy. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2007;39:513–522.

Timmermans E, Courtois C. From swiping to casual sex and/or committed relationships: Exploring the experiences of Tinder users. The Information Society. 2018;34:59–70. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2017.1414093. DOI

Valentova JV, Bártová K, Štěrbová Z, Varella MAC. Preferred and actual relative height are related to sex, sexual orientation, and dominance: Evidence from Brazil and the Czech Republic. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;100:145–150. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.049. DOI

Valentova JV, Junior FPM, Štěrbová Z, Varella MAC, Fisher ML. The association between Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality with mating and parenting efforts: A cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020;154:109613. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109613. DOI

Valentova JV, Tureček P, Varella MAC, Šebesta P, Mendes FDC, Pereira KJ, Kubicová L, Stolařová P, Havlíček J. Vocal parameters of speech and singing covary and are related to vocal attractiveness, body measures, and sociosexuality: A cross-cultural study. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:2029. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02029. PubMed DOI PMC

Walter KV, Conroy-Beam D, Buss DM, Asao K, Sorokowska A, Sorokowski P, Sorokowsk P, Aavik T, Akello G, Alhabahba MM, Alm C, Amjad N, Anjum A, Atama CS, Duyar DA, Ayebare R, Batres C, Bendixen R, Bensafia A, Bizumic B, Boussena M, Butovskaya M, Can S, Cantarero K, Carrier A, Cetinkaya H, Croy I, Cueto RM, Czub M, Dronova D, Durai S, Duyar I, Ertugrul B, Espinosa A, Estevan I, Sofia Esteves C, Fang L, Frackowiak T, Garduño TC, González KU, Guemaz F, Gyuris P, Halamová M, Herak I, Horvat M, Hromatko I, Hui C-M, Jaafar JL, Jiang F, Kafetsios K, Kavčič T, Kennair LEO, Kervyn N, Ha TTK, Khilji IM, Köbis NC, Lan HM, Láng A, Lennard GR, León E, Lindholm T, Linh TT, Lopez G, Van Luot N, Mailhos A, Manesi Z, Martinez R, McKerchar SL, Meskó N, Misra G, Monaghan C, Mora EC, Moya-Garófano A, Musil B, Natividade JC, Niemczyk A, Nizharadze G, Oberzaucher E, Oleszkiewicz A, Omar-Fauzee MS, Onyishi IE, Özener B, Pagani AF, Pakalniskiene V, Parise M, Pazhoohi F, Pisanski A, Pisansk K, Ponciano E, Popa C, Prokop P, Rizwan M, Sainz M, Salkičević S, Sargautyte R, Sarmány-Schulle I, Schmehl S, Sharad S, Siddiquibr RS, Simonetti F, Stoyanova SY, Tadinac M, Correa Varella MA, Vauclair C-M, Vega LD, Widarini DW, Yoo G, Zaťkov M, Zupančič M. Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science. 2020;31:408–423. doi: 10.1177/0956797620904154. PubMed DOI

Walter KV, Conroy-Beam D, Buss DM, Asao K, Sorokowska A, Sorokowski P, Sorokowsk P, Aavik T, Akello G, Alhabahba MM, Alm C, Amjad N, Anjum A, Atama CS, Duyar DA, Ayebare R, Batres C, Bendixen R, Bensafia A, Bizumic B, Boussena M, Butovskaya M, Can S, Cantarero K, Carrier A, Cetinkaya H, Croy I, Cueto RM, Czub M, Dronova D, Durai S, Duyar I, Ertugrul B, Espinosa A, Estevan I, Sofia Esteves C, Fang L, Frackowiak T, Garduño TC, González KU, Guemaz F, Gyuris P, Halamová M, Herak I, Horvat M, Hromatko I, Hui C-M, Jaafar JL, Jiang F, Kafetsios K, Kavčič T, Kennair LEO, Kervyn N, Ha TTK, Khilji IM, Köbis NC, Lan HM, Láng A, Lennard GR, León E, Lindholm T, Linh TT, Lopez G, Van Luot N, Mailhos A, Manesi Z, Martinez R, McKerchar SL, Meskó N, Misra G, Monaghan C, Mora EC, Moya-Garófano A, Musil B, Natividade JC, Niemczyk A, Nizharadze G, Oberzaucher E, Oleszkiewicz A, Omar-Fauzee MS, Onyishi IE, Özener B, Pagani AF, Pakalniskiene V, Parise M, Pazhoohi F, Pisanski A, Pisansk K, Ponciano E, Popa C, Prokop P, Rizwan M, Sainz M, Salkičević S, Sargautyte R, Sarmány-Schulle I, Schmehl S, Sharad S, Siddiquibr RS, Simonetti F, Stoyanova SY, Tadinac M, Correa Varella MA, Vauclair C-M, Vega LD, Widarini DW, Yoo G, Zaťkov M, Zupančič M, Zupančič M. Sex differences in human mate preferences vary across sex ratios. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2020;288:20211115. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1115. PubMed DOI PMC

Wenzel A, Emerson T. Mate selection in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2009;28:341–363. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2009.28.3.341. DOI

Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press.

Zeigler-Hill V, Myers EM. A review of gender differences in self-esteem. In: McGeown SP, editor. Psychology of gender differences. Nova Science Publishers; 2012. pp. 131–143.

Zhang L, Liu S, Li Y, Ruan LJ. Heterosexual rejection and mate choice: A sociometer perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:1846. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01846. PubMed DOI PMC

Observed Aspects of Mate Value and Sociosexuality Account for Mate Preferences: Data from a Large, Representative Study from Czechia