CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68

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

The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates?

SNYDER, JEFFREY K., KIRKPATRICK, LEE A., BARRETT, H. CLARK·2008·Personal Relationships
DOI 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Previous research has led to a widely accepted conclusion that heterosexual women prefer mates who are high in dominance. Three experiments designed to distinguish dominance from prestige and examine moderating contextual factors challenge this conclusion. College women at 2 U.S. universities evaluated hypothetical, potential mates described in written vignettes. Participants in Study 1 preferred a high‐prestige to a high‐dominance target. With dominance and prestige manipulated independently in Study 2, participants preferred high to low prestige but also preferred low to high dominance. Participants in Study 3 preferred high to low dominance, but only (a) when displayed in the context of an athletic competition and (b) in ratings of attractiveness and desirability as a short‐term (vs. long‐term) mate.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Argyle M, 1969, Social interaction
  2. Argyle M, 1972, The psychology of interpersonal behavior
  3. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01442.x · DOI
  4. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00384.x · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00023.x · DOI
  6. Buss D. M, 1994, The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating
  7. Buttermore N. R., 2008, Prestige and dominance: Distinguishing two pathways to social status
  8. Chagnon N, 1983, Yanamamo: The fierce people
  9. 10.1126/science.239.4843.985 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cummins D, 1996, Dominance hierarchies and the evolution of human reasoning, Minds and Machines, 6, 463, 10.1007/BF00389654 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00008-2 · DOI
  12. Darwin C. R, 1871, The descent of man and selection in relation to sex
  13. 10.1177/088626000015011002 · DOI
  14. Descola P, 1996, The spears of twilight: Life and death in the Amazon jungle
  15. 10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 · DOI
  16. Ellis B. J, 1992, The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, 267, 10.1093/oso/9780195060232.003.0007 · DOI
  17. 10.1017/S0140525X0000337X · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503010.x · DOI
  19. Geary D. C, 2002, Advances in child development and behavior, 41
  20. 10.1016/j.dr.2003.08.001 · DOI
  21. Goldberg L, 1981, Review of personality and social psychology, 141
  22. 10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.989 · DOI
  23. 10.1006/drev.1998.0470 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1080/01650250143000427 · DOI
  25. 10.1353/mpq.2003.0013 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00073-0 · DOI
  27. Hawley P., 1999, On winning some and losing some: A social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 215
  28. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00051-4 · DOI
  29. 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.427 · DOI
  30. 10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4<156::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-7 · DOI
  31. 10.1098/rspb.2002.2235 · DOI
  32. Lee S. S., 2006, Women’s preferences for aggressive mates: Navigating a dangerous world?
  33. 10.1177/088626001016010006 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/0029-554X(77)90213-0 · DOI
  35. 10.3758/BF03208096 · DOI
  36. 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00527.x · DOI
  37. 10.1098/rspb.1999.0694 · DOI
  38. 10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.594 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00033-1 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/21557 · DOI
  41. 10.1038/29772 · DOI
  42. 10.1080/00224490409552213 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.11.003 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01513-4 · DOI
  45. Redmond E, 1994, Tribal and chiefly warfare in South America, 10.3998/mpub.11396048 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.2307/2095603 · DOI
  47. Rosenthal G., 2001, Secondary reduction of preference for the sword ornament in the pygmy swordtail Xiphophorus nigrensis (Pisces: Poeciliidae), Animal Behaviour, 62, 37
  48. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.730 · DOI
  49. Schlegel A, 1972, Male dominance and female autonomy: Domestic authority in matrilineal societies
  50. 10.1163/156853905774539454 · DOI
  51. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.159 · DOI
  52. 10.1007/BF02692265 · DOI
  53. 10.1177/1069397104269543 · DOI
  54. 10.1023/A:1020318532350 · DOI
  55. Symons D, 1979, The evolution of human sexuality
  56. Trivers R, 2002, Natural selection and social theory: Selected papers of Robert Trivers, 60, 10.1093/oso/9780195130614.001.0001 · DOI
  57. Von Mitzlaff U, 1994, Maasai women: Life in a patriarchal society; Field research among the Parakuyo, Tanzania
  58. 10.1007/BF00992459 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.015 · DOI
  60. Zahavi A., 1997, The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle, 10.1093/oso/9780195100358.001.0001 · DOI

Cited by

See all 68

Metadata

Authors
SNYDER, J. K., KIRKPATRICK, L. A., & BARRETT, H. C.
Venue
Personal Relationships
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
425-444
ISSN
  • 1350-4126
  • 1475-6811
DOI
10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x
Cited by
68
References
7
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2 d)

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: The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x
The paper
SNYDER, J. K., KIRKPATRICK, L. A., & BARRETT, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x