The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology 2015
DOI: 10.1002/9780470939376.ch9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fundamentals of Human Mating Strategies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
67
0
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 203 publications
0
67
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…being biologically a man or woman). These and other papers throughout the social sciences find relationships between sex and other variables, such as age, relationship status, parenthood, and many other environmental influences, in patterns predicted by evolutionary theories, in particular those related to differential parental investment, costly signaling, and mate selection (e.g., Buss and Shackelford 2008; Stoet and Geary 2015; Verweij et al 2016; Wåhlin-Jacobsen et al 2015; for reviews, see Buss 2003; Schmitt 2005). It is reasonable to assume that these theoretical perspectives, by and large, explain a substantial proportion of the variance related to group or individual differences, otherwise would these approaches have waned for lack of empirical support.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…being biologically a man or woman). These and other papers throughout the social sciences find relationships between sex and other variables, such as age, relationship status, parenthood, and many other environmental influences, in patterns predicted by evolutionary theories, in particular those related to differential parental investment, costly signaling, and mate selection (e.g., Buss and Shackelford 2008; Stoet and Geary 2015; Verweij et al 2016; Wåhlin-Jacobsen et al 2015; for reviews, see Buss 2003; Schmitt 2005). It is reasonable to assume that these theoretical perspectives, by and large, explain a substantial proportion of the variance related to group or individual differences, otherwise would these approaches have waned for lack of empirical support.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The terms most commonly used by biologists and anthropologists (e.g., Clutton-Brock, 1989; Murdock, 1967; Schmitt, 2005b) to classify mating strategies include monogamous (one male mates with one female over an extended period, such as over one or more breeding seasons), polygynous (one male mates with multiple females over an extended period), polyandrous (one female mates with multiple males over an extended period), and promiscuous (or “multimale-multifemale”; multiple females engage in short-term, non-exclusive relationships with multiple males). However, the mating behaviors of a given species, culture, or individual may be complex and “strategically pluralistic” (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), that is, characterized by more than one strategy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, consider the mating systems of humans’ closest evolutionary relatives, the greater and lesser apes. Although most commonly chimpanzees and bonobos are classified as promiscuous, gorillas and orangutans as polygynous, and gibbons as monogamous (Schmitt, 2005b; Smuts & Smuts, 1993), these categories may mask considerable strategic pluralism. For example, monogamous gibbons sometimes engage in short-term extrapair copulations and polygynous orangutans are often also considered promiscuous (Beaudrot, Kahlenberg, & Marshall, 2009; Plavcan, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations