Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 240

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences

Todd, Peter M., Penke, Lars, Fasolo, Barbara, Lenton, Alison P.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Based on undergraduates' self-reports of mate preferences for various traits and self-perceptions of their own levels on those traits, Buston and Emlen [Buston PM, Emlen ST (2003) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8805–8810] concluded that modern human mate choices do not reflect predictions of tradeoffs from evolutionary theory but instead follow a “likes-attract” pattern, where people choose mates who match their self-perceptions. However, reported preferences need not correspond to actual mate choices, which are more relevant from an evolutionary perspective. In a study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event, we were largely able to replicate Buston and Emlen's self-report results in a pre-event questionnaire, but we found that the stated preferences did not predict actual choices made during the speed-dates. Instead, men chose women based on their physical attractiveness, whereas women, who were generally much more discriminating than men, chose men whose overall desirability as a mate matched the women's self-perceived physical attractiveness. Unlike the cognitive processes that Buston and Emlen inferred from self-reports, this pattern of results from actual mate choices is very much in line with the evolutionary predictions of parental investment theory.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0705290104

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01169-3 · DOI
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951 · DOI
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72 · DOI
  4. 10.1073/pnas.1533220100 · DOI
  5. I Ajzen, M Fishbein Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980).
  6. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1023/A:1007835629236 · DOI
  8. 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835 · DOI
  9. 10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90028-4 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/0162-3095(91)90030-T · DOI
  12. 10.1080/09658210244000595 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.006 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00146.x · DOI
  15. N Ambady, FJ Bernieri, JA Richeson Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed MP Zanna (Academic, San Diego) Vol 32, 201–271 (2000).
  16. 10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012 · DOI
  18. CR Darwin The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London, 1871).
  19. RL Trivers Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, ed B Campbell (Aldine–Atherton, Chicago), pp. 136–179 (1972).
  20. K Grammer, B Fink, A Juette, G Ronzal, R Thornhill Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives, eds G Rhodes, LA Zebrowitz (Ablex, Westport, CT), pp. 91–125 (2002).
  21. 10.1023/B:JONB.0000039648.30935.1b · DOI
  22. 10.1017/S0140525X0000337X · DOI
  23. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/00224499009551579 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1016/j.tree.2003.11.002 · DOI
  26. 10.1007/BF01065686 · DOI
  27. 10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.56 · DOI
  28. RL Keeney, H Raiffa Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (Wiley, New York, 1976).

Cited by

See all 240

Metadata

Authors
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P.
Affiliations
  • *Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition and
  • International Max Planck Research School LIFE, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany;
  • Operational Research Group, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom; and
  • **Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, United Kingdom
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-09-18
Volume
104
Issue
38
Pages
15011-15016
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
240
References
7
Language
en

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: Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0705290104
The paper
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705290104

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.