Abstract
This study examined to what extent individual mate selectivity could be explained by characteristics of the mating market. Specifically, we hypothesized that females’ selectivity would be more malleable, or context-dependent, than males’ mate selectivity (cf. Baumeister, 2000; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). In a series of 22 speed-dating events in which 546 adults aged 22–42 years participated, we investigated whether the proportion of available potential mates (i.e., male–female ratio), which sex rotated during the speed-date event (i.e., approached the other sex), and mate qualities of same-sex competitors affected individuals’ selectivity, as indexed by the proportion of no’s given during the speed-dating events. Results from multilevel analyses demonstrated that, as hypothesized, event characteristics explained mate selectivity only for females. Specifically, women with a lower facial attractiveness and more deviant body mass index (BMI) values were overall less selective, but this trend was only present in speed-dating events characterized by higher intrasex competition—when females rotated or when other females in the event were more attractive or had healthier BMI. The findings partially support the idea of “erotic plasticity” in females, demonstrating that females’ mate selectivity is more malleable and dependent on context than males’ mate selectivity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363.
Belot, M., & Francesconi, M. (2006). Can anyone be “the” one? Evidence on mate selection from speed dating. Internal document, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264.
Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (2001). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 92–99.
Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science, 20, 1290–1295.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149–166.
Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697.
Furnham, A., Dias, M., & McClelland, A. (1998). The role of body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractiveness. Sex Roles, 39, 311–326.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142.
Goldstein, H. (1995). Hierarchical data modeling in the social sciences. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 201–204.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Shebilske, L. J., & Lundgren, S. R. (1993). Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 522–531.
Ha, T., Overbeek, G., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1063–1070.
Halliwell, E., & Dittmar, H. (2005). The role of self-improvement and self-evaluation motives in social comparisons with idealised female bodies in the media. Body Image, 2, 249–261.
Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive—Self similarity, complementarity, or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709–722.
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.
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, 3–23.
Latty-Mann, H., & Davis, K. E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice: Preference and actuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 5–23.
Penke, L., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the attunement of self-esteem to self-perceived mate value: Hints to an adaptive mechanism? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1123–1129.
Shackleford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.
Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of a woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 105–120.
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, 15011–15016.
Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). London: Aldine.
Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., 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, 685–697.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.
Waynforth, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: Evidence from ‘lonely hearts’ advertisements. Behaviour, 132, 755–779.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the Radboud University Nijmegen speed-dating team for the data collection, the Openlucht Museum Arnhem and restaurant Odessa for providing us with adequate locations and PR for the speed-dating events, and the many participants who took part in the events for providing us with valuable data on their mate preferences. We also wish to thank Katya Ivanova and Sander Thomaes for providing us with insightful comments on draft versions of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Overbeek, G., Nelemans, S.A., Karremans, J. et al. The Malleability of Mate Selection in Speed-Dating Events. Arch Sex Behav 42, 1163–1171 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0067-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0067-8