Mate value: Difference between revisions
added reference section |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Further influences of mate value may include, cultural effects, sex differences and evolutionary impacts. |
Further influences of mate value may include, cultural effects, sex differences and evolutionary impacts. |
||
== Evolution of mate value == |
== Evolution of mate value == |
||
Revision as of 11:46, 2 March 2016
Mate value derives from the original concept of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and sexual selection, and the social exchange theory of relationships [1] [2]. Based upon mate desirability and preferences, it underpins mate selection and the formation of romantic relationships. Primarily, mate value is the sum of certain traits perceived as desirable [3] of which represent genetic quality and/or fitness.
Mate value can predict the potential mates one is available to, i.e. with a higher mate value one is desirable to more individuals. Thus, one’s own-mate value can influence trait and mate preferences, often leading to preferences in those who hold similar mate values [4]. Ultimately, mate value has been suggested as a 'determining factor in mate choice' [5].
Factors such as attractiveness and intelligence can influence perceived mate value. It has been shown preferences dictate an individual's mate value leading to the prioritising of certain characteristics by some and not others, therefore resulting in potential mates to have various mate values dependent on the mate-seekers's preferences [6] [7]. For example, a women looking for a long-term partner, may value a mate with high generosity to provide for potential offspring, whereas when looking for a short-term fling desirability for this trait may be lower.
Further influences of mate value may include, cultural effects, sex differences and evolutionary impacts.
Evolution of mate value
Evolutionary theory has been able to show that individuals aim for the highest mate value possible, not only of others but of themselves. Mate values that have continuously been seen as preferential include fertility, reproductive ability [8], health, age, intelligence, status, parenting skills, kindness, willingness and ability to invest in offspring[9][10][11][12][13][14]. However, all individuals are different and therefore value characteristics in different ways [15] leading to a time consuming search if looking for a mate based on one's own mate value [16]. These individual differences of mate value have great evolutionary importance for survival, mating and reproduction success [17] However, as shown by Buss et al. (2001), some mate values have increased and decreased in preference over time. With the introduction of birth control and contraception, chastity has become a lesser favoured mate value whereas dependable character, emotion stability and maturity have retained a high esteem [18].
Sex Differences in Mate Value
Mate value has been seen to differ between males and females, and various studies have been conducted to determine what these are. Researchers have found that men place a much bigger emphasis on the reproductive capacity of a mate to ensure they are able to produce offspring. This reproductive capacity may be determined by focusing on the youth and attractiveness of a female [19]. The same study also found that females place a greater importance on financial prospects, status and other qualities that are needed for the long term when selecting a mate.
Ben Hamida, Mineka and Bailey (1998) [20] also looked into sex differences. It seems that men tend to select traits such as attractiveness, youth and thinness, which suggests a preference for uncontrollable qualities. This however differs from what females focus on, which are the opposite types of traits and ones that can be controlled. These include status, ambition, job prospects and physical strength.
These finding suggest that females are choosier when selecting a partner. Trivers (1972) [21] suggested that this was the case because of parental investment. Since females invest more in the offspring, she requires a mate that can provide suitable attributes to be able to support and provide for the offspring.
Although there are differences between mate value, Buss (1989) also found that traits such as intelligence and health are rated equally in terms of importance by both men and women, suggesting that although there are obvious differences, there are also inherent similarities between the two.
References
- ^ Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 32-43.
- ^ Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of affective disorders, 75(2), 131-148.
- ^ Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of affective disorders, 75(2), 131-148.
- ^ Tadinac, M., & Hromatko, I. (2007). Own mate value and relative importance of a potential mate's qualities. Studia Psychologica, 49(3), 251.
- ^ DeIuliis, S. (2013). Effects of Mate Value Difference on Relationship Length and Satisfaction.
- ^ Eastwick, P. W., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). Relational mate value: Consensus and uniqueness in romantic evaluations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 106(5), 728.
- ^ Li, N. P. (2008). Intelligent priorities: Adaptive long-and short-term mate preferences. Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system, 105-120.
- ^ Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical Attractiveness: An Adaptationist Perspective. The handbook of evolutionary psychology.
- ^ Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1– 49
- ^ Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: The role of trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 23, 573– 644.
- ^ Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Individual differences in developmental precision and fluctuating asymmetry: A model and its implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 402–416
- ^ Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press
- ^ Symons, D. (1992). On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 137–162). New York: Oxford University Press
- ^ Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerson (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American scientist, 73(1), 47-51.
- ^ Dillon, H. M., Adair, L. E., Wang, Z., & Johnson, Z. (2013). Slow and steady wins the race: Life history, mate value, and mate settling. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 612-618.
- ^ Buss, D.M., & Greiling, H. (1999). Adaptive individual differences. Journal of Personality, 67, 209–243
- ^ Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491-503.
- ^ Buss, D. M (1989). "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures". Behavioral and brain sciences. 12 (01): 1-14.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ Ben Hamida, S; Mineka, S; Bailey, J. M (1998). "Sex differences in perceived controllability of mate value: an evolutionary perspective". Journal of personality and social psychology. 75 (4): 953.
- ^ Trivers, R (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871 - 1971. Chicago: Aldine. p. 136-179.