Cited by 38Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Risk

Bressan, Paola, Stranieri, Debora·2008·Psychological Science

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bressan, P., & Stranieri, D.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Bressan, Paola
Venue
Psychological Science
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