bims-chumac 2020-03-22 papers

Issue of 2020–03–22
three papers selected by
Jay Dixit, Storytelling.NYC

Psychol Sci. 2020 Mar 20. 956797620904154

Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication.

Kathryn V Walter, Daniel Conroy-Beam, David M Buss, Kelly Asao, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Toivo Aavik, Grace Akello, Mohammad Madallh Alhabahba, Charlotte Alm, Naumana Amjad, Afifa Anjum, Chiemezie S Atama, Derya Atamtürk Duyar, Richard Ayebare, Carlota Batres, Mons Bendixen, Aicha Bensafia, Boris Bizumic, Mahmoud Boussena, Marina Butovskaya, Seda Can, Katarzyna Cantarero, Antonin Carrier, Hakan Cetinkaya, Ilona Croy, Rosa María Cueto, Marcin Czub, Daria Dronova, Seda Dural, Izzet Duyar, Berna Ertugrul, Agustín Espinosa, Ignacio Estevan, Carla Sofia Esteves, Luxi Fang, Tomasz Frackowiak, Jorge Contreras Garduño, Karina Ugalde González, Farida Guemaz, Petra Gyuris, Mária Halamová, Iskra Herak, Marina Horvat, Ivana Hromatko, Chin-Ming Hui, Jas Laile Jaafar, Feng Jiang, Konstantinos Kafetsios, Tina Kavčič, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Nicolas Kervyn, Truong Thi Khanh Ha, Imran Ahmed Khilji, Nils C Köbis, Hoang Moc Lan, András Láng, Georgina R Lennard, Ernesto León, Torun Lindholm, Trinh Thi Linh, Giulia Lopez, Nguyen Van Luot, Alvaro Mailhos, Zoi Manesi, Rocio Martinez, Sarah L McKerchar, Norbert Meskó, Girishwar Misra, Conal Monaghan, Emanuel C Mora, Alba Moya-Garófano, Bojan Musil, Jean Carlos Natividade, Agnieszka Niemczyk, George Nizharadze, Elisabeth Oberzaucher, Anna Oleszkiewicz, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee, Ike E Onyishi, Baris Özener, Ariela Francesca Pagani, Vilmante Pakalniskiene, Miriam Parise, Farid Pazhoohi, Annette Pisanski, Katarzyna Pisanski, Edna Ponciano, Camelia Popa, Pavol Prokop, Muhammad Rizwan, Mario Sainz, Svjetlana Salkičević, Ruta Sargautyte, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller, Susanne Schmehl, Shivantika Sharad, Razi Sultan Siddiqui, Franco Simonetti, Stanislava Yordanova Stoyanova, Meri Tadinac, Marco Antonio Correa Varella, Christin-Melanie Vauclair, Luis Diego Vega, Dwi Ajeng Widarini, Gyesook Yoo, Marta Zat'ková, Maja Zupančič.

Considerable research has examined human mate preferences across cultures, finding universal sex differences in preferences for attractiveness and resources as well as sources of systematic cultural variation. Two competing perspectives-an evolutionary psychological perspective and a biosocial role perspective-offer alternative explanations for these findings. However, the original data on which each perspective relies are decades old, and the literature is fraught with conflicting methods, analyses, results, and conclusions. Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), we attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives. Support for universal sex differences in preferences remains robust: Men, more than women, prefer attractive, young mates, and women, more than men, prefer older mates with financial prospects. Cross-culturally, both sexes have mates closer to their own ages as gender equality increases. Beyond age of partner, neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.

Keywords: biosocial role theory; cross-cultural studies; evolutionary psychology; mate preferences; open data; preregistered; sex differences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154

Front Psychol. 2019 ;10 2554

Extradyadic Behaviors and Gender: How Do They Relate With Sexual Desire, Relationship Quality, and Attractiveness.

Joana Arantes, Fátima Barros, Helena M Oliveira.

Recent years have seen an increasing number of studies on relationship extradyadic behaviors (Pinto and Arantes, 2016; Pazhoohi et al., 2017; Silva et al., 2017; Fisher, 2018). However, much is still to learn about the impact of these extradyadic behaviors on subsequent relationships that an individual may have. Our main goal was to study the association between past extradyadic behaviors - inflicted and suffered - and current relationship quality, sexual desire and attractiveness. Specifically, we aimed to: (i) Understand if past extradyadic behaviors are related to current relationship quality, sexual desire, and self-perceived and partner's attractiveness; (ii) Identify possible gender differences in these variables. For that, 364 participants (251 females and 113 males) were recruited through personal and institutional e-mails, online social networks (e.g., Facebook), and the website of the Evolutionary Psychology Group from the University of Minho. All participants completed a demographic and relationship questionnaire, followed by questions related to extradyadic behaviors and self-perceived attractiveness, the Perceived Relationship Quality Components (PRQC) Inventory, the Sex Drive Scale (SDQ), and the Importance of Partner's Physical Attractiveness Scale (IPPAS). For those currently involved in a relationship, results suggested that extradyadic behaviors (both suffered or inflicted) are linked with current low relationship quality and high sexual desire in the present. In addition, individuals who perceived themselves as being more attractive tended to have a higher sexual desire and higher relationship quality. Overall, men reported higher levels of extradyadic behaviors and sexual desire, gave more importance to physical attractiveness, and perceived their current relationship as having less quality than women. These results add to the literature by focusing on different variables that play an important role in romantic relationships, and have important implications.

Keywords: attractiveness; extradyadic behaviors; gender; relationship quality; sexual desire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02554

Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Mar;4(3): 238-247

Deliberating trade-offs with the future.

Adam Bulley, Daniel L Schacter.

Many fundamental choices in life are intertemporal: they involve trade-offs between sooner and later outcomes. In recent years there has been a surge of interest into how people make intertemporal decisions, given that such decisions are ubiquitous in everyday life and central in domains from substance use to climate change action. While it is clear that people make decisions according to rules, intuitions and habits, they also commonly deliberate over their options, thinking through potential outcomes and reflecting on their own preferences. In this Perspective, we bring to bear recent research into the higher-order capacities that underpin deliberation-particularly those that enable people to think about the future (prospection) and their own thinking (metacognition)-to shed light on intertemporal decision-making. We show how a greater appreciation for these mechanisms of deliberation promises to advance our understanding of intertemporal decision-making and unify a wide range of otherwise disparate choice phenomena.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0834-9