The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Age and Gender Differences in Mate Selection Criteria for Various Involvement Levels
Abstract
The present study investigated mate preferences for five different levels of relationship involvement—marriage, serious relationship, falling in love, casual sex, and sexual fantasies–among individuals of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 years of age. Consistent with an evolutionary perspective, men preferred mates who were higher in physical attractiveness than themselves, whereas women preferred mates who were higher in income, education, self–confidence, intelligence, dominance, and social position than themselves. The lower the level of relationship involvement, the lower were the preferred levels of education, physical attractiveness, and, particularly for males, preferred intelligence in comparison to oneself. For sexual fantasies, men and women preferred mates who were higher in physical attractiveness than those they preferred for real partners. There were few age differences in mate preferences, although older individuals set higher standards for a potential mate’s education.
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
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
Sexual 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
The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept
Hofstede, G. (1984) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1984.4279653 · Cited by 1,257
Social comparison, social attractiveness and evolution: How might they be related?
Gilbert, P., Price, J., & Allan, S. (1995) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/0732-118x(95)00002-x · Cited by 322 · cited 2×
“As noted by Gilbert, Price, and Allan (1995) , humans have developed mechanisms to assess their status in the group, in particular their own attractiveness in comparison to same sex others and, by implication, in comparison to opposite sex others.”
Cited by
Schmitt, D. P. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000051 · Cited by 974
Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why.
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468 · Cited by 699
Self-citationFenner, J. N. (2005) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20188 · Cited by 508
Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate Selection
Sassler, S. (2010) · Journal of Marriage and Family · doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00718.x · Cited by 302
Ueda, P., Mercer, C. H., Ghaznavi, C., & Herbenick, D. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833 · Cited by 216
Metadata
- Authors
- Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T.
- Venue
- Personal Relationships
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 271-278
- ISSN
- 1350-4126 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6811
- OpenAlex
- W2011773404
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Age and Gender Differences in Mate Selection Criteria for Various Involvement Levels. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-6811.00018
- The paper
- Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and Gender Differences in Mate Selection Criteria for Various Involvement Levels. Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00018
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.
