The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Risk
Abstract
Because men of higher genetic quality tend to be poorer partners and parents than men of lower genetic quality, women may profit from securing a stable investment from the latter, while obtaining good genes via extrapair mating with the former. Only if conception occurs, however, do the evolutionary benefits of such a strategy overcome its costs. Accordingly, we predicted that (a) partnered women should prefer attached men, because such men are more likely than single men to have pair-bonding qualities, and hence to be good replacement partners, and (b) this inclination should reverse when fertility rises, because attached men are less available for impromptu sex than single men. In this study, 208 women rated the attractiveness of men described as single or attached. As predicted, partnered women favored attached men at the low-fertility phases of the menstrual cycle, but preferred single men (if masculine, i.e., advertising good genetic quality) when conception risk was high.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
When both studies have equal sample size, the probability that the original study's effect size is covered by the replication study's confidence interval equals 83.4% (39).
“When both studies have equal sample size, this probability equals 83.4% ( 39 ).”
From Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015) · cites this paper as [39]
Cites
Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach
Wobst, H. M. (1974) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/279579 · Cited by 401 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Scarcity of suitable mates must have been a concrete problem within Pleistocene mating networks, which ranged between 175 and 475 individuals of both sexes, less than half of reproductive age (Wobst, 1974).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515 · see citing works
Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research
Dreber, A., Pfeiffer, T., Almenberg, J., Isaksson, S., Wilson, B., Chen, Y., Nosek, B. A., & Johannesson, M. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1516179112 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bressan, P., & Stranieri, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Padua (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Bressan, Paola
- ORCID
- Bressan, Paola
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-151
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2141000104
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- extra-pair paternity, female mate choice, pair bonding, fertility, menstrual cycle, sexual selection, male attractiveness, women's preferences, conception risk
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Marriage, Sexual Behavior, Social Behavior, Social Desirability, Reproductive Behavior
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