CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 729Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

Evolution, Traits, and the Stages of Human Courtship: Qualifying the Parental Investment Model

Kenrick, Douglas T., Sadalla, Edward K., Groth, Gary, Trost, Melanie R.·1990·Journal of Personality
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Individual differences are explicitly connected to social interaction in Darwin's notion of sexual selection. Traits that increase the probability of successful reproduction will tend to increase in frequency. This process operates partly through differential choice, by one sex, of certain traits in the other. According to the parental investment model, females frequently have more stringent criteria for the traits they will accept in a mate because they have a relatively larger investment in each offspring. Because human mating arrangements often involve a substantial commitment of resources by the male, it is necessary to invoke a distinction between the selectivity involved during casual mating opportunities and the selectivity exercised when choosing a long-term partner. Ninety-three undergraduate men and women rated their minimum criteria on 24 partner characteristics at four levels of commitment. In line with an unqualified parental investment model, females were more selective overall, particularly on status-linked variables. In line with a qualified parental investment model, males' trait preferences depended upon the anticipated investment in the relationship. Males had lower requirements for a sexual partner than did females, but were nearly as selective as females when considering requirements for a long-term partner.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Heterosexual women look for a partner with high socio-economic status and heterosexual men look for a partner who is physically attractive.

    “Researchers have found that heterosexual women look for a partner with high socio-economic status and heterosexual men look for a partner who is physically attractive (Buss & Barnes, 1986;Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth & Trost, 1990;Ellis & Symons, 1990;Townsend, 1993).”

    From Anatomy of the online dating romance scam (2015) · cites this paper as Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth & Trost, 1990

  • The fake profile descriptions tap into the typical characteristics that men and women seek in a partner.

    “The following basic descriptions tap into the typical characteristics that men and women seek in a partner and are therefore a sensible strategy for the scammer to employ.”

    From The Scammers Persuasive Techniques Model: Development of a Stage Model to Explain the Online Dating Romance Scam (2013) · cites this paper as Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth and Trost 1990

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kenrick, Douglas T.
ORCID
Kenrick, Douglas T.
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-03
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
97-116
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x
OpenAlex
W1970343069
Cited by
729
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 27
FWCI
51.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 5902 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Keywords
courtship, sexual selection, mate preferences, partner selection criteria, relationship commitment, individual differences, long-term relationships
MeSH terms
Courtship, Biological Evolution, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Models, Biological, Parents, Selection, Genetic, Time Factors

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