The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contrasting Computational Models of Mate Preference Integration Across 45 Countries
Open accessAbstract
Humans express a wide array of ideal mate preferences. Around the world, people desire romantic partners who are intelligent, healthy, kind, physically attractive, wealthy, and more. In order for these ideal preferences to guide the choice of actual romantic partners, human mating psychology must possess a means to integrate information across these many preference dimensions into summaries of the overall mate value of their potential mates. Here we explore the computational design of this mate preference integration process using a large sample of n = 14,487 people from 45 countries around the world. We combine this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets. Across cultures, people higher in mate value appear to experience greater power of choice on the mating market in that they set higher ideal standards, better fulfill their preferences in choice, and pair with higher mate value partners. Furthermore, we find that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 · Cited by 7,272
College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage
Gale, D., & Shapley, L. S. (1962) · The American Mathematical Monthly · doi:10.1080/00029890.1962.11989827 · Cited by 5,985
Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
Buss, D. M. (1989) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00023992 · Cited by 4,484
Self-citationSexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204 · Cited by 4,253
Self-citationGigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 · Cited by 4,037
The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0000337x · Cited by 1,819
Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review.
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0031859 · Cited by 1,575
Preferences in human mate selection.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559 · Cited by 1,432
Self-citationHill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y · Cited by 1,088
The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947 · Cited by 1,006
Cited by
A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges
Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U. R., et al. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 · Cited by 3,111
Eleven grand challenges in single-cell data science
Lähnemann, D., Köster, J., Szczurek, E., McCarthy, D. J., Hicks, S. C., Robinson, M. D., Vallejos, C. A., Campbell, K. R., Beerenwinkel, N., Mahfouz, A., et al. (2020) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-020-1926-6 · Cited by 1,327
Samsami, S., Mohamadizaniani, M., Sarrafzadeh, M.-H., Rene, E. R., & Firoozbahr, M. (2020) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.05.034 · Cited by 1,006
The physical oceanography of the transport of floating marine debris
van Sebille, E., Aliani, S., Law, K. L., Maximenko, N., Alsina, J. M., Bagaev, A., Bergmann, M., Chapron, B., Chubarenko, I., Cózar, A., et al. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7d · Cited by 982
Busch, P. A., & McCarthy, S. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106414 · Cited by 657
Metadata
- Authors
- Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Aavik, T., Akello, G., Alhabahba, M. M., Alm, C., Amjad, N., Anjum, A., Atama, C. S., Duyar, D. A., Ayebare, R., Batres, C., Bendixen, M., Bensafia, A., Bizumic, B., Boussena, M., Butovskaya, M., Can, S., Cantarero, K., Carrier, A., Cetinkaya, H., Croy, I., Cueto, R. M., Czub, M., Dronova, D., Dural, S., Duyar, I., Ertugrul, B., Espinosa, A., Estevan, I., Esteves, C. S., Fang, L., Frackowiak, T., Garduño, J. C., González, K. U., Guemaz, F., Gyuris, P., Halamová, M., Herak, I., Horvat, M., Hromatko, I., Hui, C.-M., Jaafar, J. L., Jiang, F., Kafetsios, K., Kavčič, T., Kennair, L. E. O., Kervyn, N., Thi Khanh Ha, T., Khilji, I. A., Köbis, N. C., Lan, H. M., Láng, A., Lennard, G. R., León, E., Lindholm, T., Thi Linh, T., Lopez, G., Van Luot, N., Mailhos, A., Manesi, Z., Martinez, R., McKerchar, S. L., Meskó, N., Misra, G., Monaghan, C., Mora, E. C., Moya-Garófano, A., Musil, B., Natividade, J. C., Niemczyk, A., Nizharadze, G., Oberzaucher, E., Oleszkiewicz, A., Omar-Fauzee, M. S., Onyishi, I. E., Özener, B., Pagani, A. F., Pakalniskiene, V., Parise, M., Pazhoohi, F., Pisanski, A., Pisanski, K., Ponciano, E., Popa, C., Prokop, P., Rizwan, M., Sainz, M., Salkičević, S., Sargautyte, R., Sarmány-Schuller, I., Schmehl, S., Sharad, S., Siddiqui, R. S., Simonetti, F., Stoyanova, S. Y., Tadinac, M., Varella, M. A. C., Vauclair, C.-M., Vega, L. D., Widarini, D. A., Yoo, G., Zaťková, M., & Zupančič, M.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2019-11-15
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16885-16885
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2983201012
- Cited by
- 1,770
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 484.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (vor)
- Funders
- Narodowe Centrum Nauki (2014/13/B/HS6/02644)
- Országos Tudományos Kutatási Alapprogramok (K125437)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (71971225)
- National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (501.01-2016.02)
- Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego (626/STYP/12/2017)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contrasting Computational Models of Mate Preference Integration Across 45 Countries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-019-52748-8
- The paper
- Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Aavik, T., Akello, G., Alhabahba, M. M., Alm, C., Amjad, N., Anjum, A., Atama, C. S., Duyar, D. A., Ayebare, R., Batres, C., Bendixen, M., Bensafia, A., Bizumic, B., Boussena, M., . . . Zupančič, M. (2019). Contrasting Computational Models of Mate Preference Integration Across 45 Countries. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52748-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.