See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260801167

The Mate Value Scale

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · July 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005

CITATIONS READS

78 11,651

2 authors, including:

Brad Sagarin
Northern Illinois University
63 PUBLICATIONS   3,094 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Experimental crosstalk View project

BDSM Research Team @ Northern Illinois University View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brad Sagarin on 15 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 72–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The Mate Value Scale

John E. Edlund a,⇑, Brad J. Sagarin b
a
Rochester Institute of Technology, United States
b
Northern Illinois University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Mate value is a construct of importance to many psychological (especially evolutionary psychological)
Received 14 October 2013 theories. However, there are no well validated self-report measures of mate value. In light of this, we
Received in revised form 3 February 2014 designed the Mate Value Scale (MVS): a brief, four-item measure that can assess mate value of the self,
Accepted 4 February 2014
of one’s partner, or of another target. Study One demonstrates that the MVS has good internal consis-
tency, a one-factor structure, and good convergent validity. Study Two replicates these psychometric
findings along with demonstrations of good test–retest reliability and further convergent and discrimi-
Keywords:
nant validity. Study Three demonstrates how the MVS can successfully be applied to an evolutionary
Mate value
Evolutionary psychology
psychological domain (the sex difference in jealousy). Additional cited research demonstrates the MVS’s
Validation utility in a number of other domains. We conclude that the MVS is a short and effective measure of mate
Jealousy value.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Whom do we choose to mate with and why? Human mating has
been a topic of interest to philosophers and scientists alike for many
years. Numerous studies have investigated men’s and women’s sex-
ual strategies (e.g., Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, & Angleitner, 2005), pref-
erences for short-term mates (e.g., Schmitt, 2005), and preferences
for long-term mates (e.g., Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen,
2001). Most of the research has illustrated differences between
men and women (e.g., mate selection criteria (Buunk, Dijkstra,
Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002), mate retention tactics (Buss &
Shackelford, 1997), reactions to infidelity (Edlund & Sagarin,
2009)), whereas a smaller number of studies have focused primarily
on the similarities between the genders (e.g., causes of marital disso-
lution; Betzig, 1989).
A major area of research that incorporates all of these aspects of
mating psychology is the theory of assortative mating. Assortative
mating is based on the idea of mate worth or value (Gangestad &
Simpson, 2000). Specifically, it refers to the proclivity for individu-
als to be in a long-term relationship with someone who is of
approximately equivalent mate value. This phenomenon has been
demonstrated in numerous animal species (e.g., budgerigars,
Moravec, Streidter, & Burley, 2006; lake perch, Behrmann-Godel,
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, 01-2355 Eastman
Building, Rochester Institute of Technology, 18 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY
14623, United States. Tel.: +1 585 475 7475.
E-mail address: John.edlund@rit.edu (J.E. Edlund).
Gerlach, & Eckmann, 2006), as well as in humans (e.g., Luo &
Klohnen, 2005; Watson et al., 2004).
Mate value has emerged as an important moderator in a num-
ber of research areas. For instance, mate value has been shown
to moderate the relationship between fertility status in women
and changes in their mate preferences (Millar, 2013). Other re-
search has suggested that men’s and women’s demands of a mate
differ based on mate value (Edlund & Sagarin, 2010). Mate value
may also moderate the types of relationship maintenance behav-
iors men engage in (Starratt & Shackelford, 2012). Even abortion
decisions may be partially moderated by mate value (Anglin,
Amaral, & Edlund, 2010).
Mate value has been assessed in research using a number of dif-
ferent methods that can be roughly divided into two approaches.
The first approach is characterized by the assessment of one or
more factors that researchers assume are components of mate va-
lue such as physical attractiveness (Griffiths & Kunz 1973), facial
attractiveness (Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2006), masculine traits (such
as voice pitch: Collins, 2000), and feminine traits (waist–hip ratio:
Singh, Dixson, Jessop, Morgan, & Dixson, 2010). Other measures
(such as the Mate Value Inventory (MVI) Kirsner, Figueredo, &
Jacobs, 2003) ask participants to indicate their own values on com-
ponents of mate value (which are then summed to derive a total
mate value score). Still other researchers have looked at the
number of children produced across a lifespan as the primary mea-
sure of mate value (Pflüger, Oberzaucher, Katina, Holzleitner, &
Grammer, 2012), or self-percieved perceptions of mating success
(Landolt, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1995). However, an accurate

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.E. Edlund, B.J. Sagarin / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 72–77
assessment of mate value using these methods depends on
researchers accurately capturing all of the components of mate va-
lue and combining them in potentially highly complex ways (e.g.,
certain characteristics being taken into account only when mini-
mum levels of other characteristics have been reached; very high
levels of one characteristic compensating for inadequate levels of
another; etc.). In addition, the assessment of mate value using
some of these techniques can be costly in terms of time and effort
(e.g., computer-based measurement of facial symmetry, inter-rater
assessment of physical attractiveness). Furthermore, although
there are a number of commonly agreed upon traits valued in a
mate (such as: attractiveness: Bailey, Durante, & Geary, 2011; sta-
tus: Buss, 1989; friendliness, health, family orientation: Kenrick,
Sadall, Groth, & Trost, 1990), other traits are still being identified
(Kille, Forest, & Wood, 2013). Finally, some research has suggested
that culture and environmental factors may influence mate value
(Goodwin et al., 2012). Perhaps as a result of our incomplete
knowledge of all the components of mate value, to date, there have
been no fully validated component measures of mate value that
encompass all aspects of the construct (Edlund, 2008).
The second approach to measuring mate value assesses mate
value more holistically1. This approach is based on the idea that
people have an accurate sense of their own mate value and the mate
value of others, even if they cannot articulate all the factors that
comprise mate value and the complex algorithms that combine
these factors into mate value (Brase & Guy, 2004). So, instead of
measuring individual factors and, if more than one is measured,
combining them (typically using an unweighted average), the holis-
tic approach allows this complex process to occur inside the obser-
ver and attempts to measure the output of the process. Currently,
there is only one self-report measure of self-perceived mate value
that takes this approach (Mate Value Single Item Scale (MVSIS) Brase
& Guy, 2004); however, as a single item measure it may not possess
desired levels of reliability.
There are advantage and disadvantages to both approaches. If a
particular component of mate value (such as physical attractive-
ness) is particularly relevant to a research question, adopting a com-
ponent approach makes sense. However, given that the majority of
the research has conceptualized mate value as an all-encompassing
construct, the measurement and accurate combination of all com-
ponents of mate value is critical if the component approach is
adopted—a difficult task as the components and combining algo-
rithms are still being investigated. The purpose of this paper is to
detail the creation, validation, and application of a short (4-item)
self-report measure of mate value (hereafter termed Mate Value
Scale (MVS)) that takes a holistic approach to assessing mate value.
2. Study One
Although much work remains to fully understand all of the im-
pacts of mate value on individuals in the mating pool, it is clear
that mate value matters. Furthermore, although researchers have
not yet identified all the components of mate value or the ways
these components are combined, research has demonstrated that
people actively seek mates that are close to their own mate value
(Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Watson et al., 2004). As such, we sought
to develop a mate value measure that would allow participants
to indicate their own understanding of their mate value to
researchers. Rather than taking the approach offered by Kirsner
et al. (2003) and asking participants to indicate particular aspects
of their mate value (which are then summed to determine a final
mate value score – largely following a component approach), we
1
Other traits, such as the Big Five, have been successfully measured both in
detailed components and holistic measures (Herrmann & Pfister, 2013).
73
took the approach initially offered by Brase and Guy (2004) in not
pre-specifying the individual components and instead asked par-
ticipants to make more holistic judgments. Our approach builds
upon Brase and Guy’s single item scale but with the addition of
multiple items to ensure higher levels of reliability and validity.
2.1. Study One method
2.1.1. Participants
Three hundred and forty-eight students participated in this
study. There were 88 men and 258 women (and 2 participants
who did not self-report gender), mean participant age was
21.22 years (SD = 4.39). There were 272 Caucasians, 25 African
Americans, 19 Asian Americans, 15 Hispanics, 14 self-identified
others/bi-racial, and 3 participants who did not identify a racial
background.
2.2. Procedure
This study was conducted as an addendum to an unrelated
study looking at college student attitudes towards the criminal
courts system. Participants were presented with the MVS and the
MVSIS at the end of the associated study. Please see Appendix
the Mate Value Scale. 2
2.3. Study One results and discussion
The first analysis of interest was an evaluation of the reliability
of the MVS. The internal consistency of our measure was good,
Cronbach’s a = .86. Following this, we ran an exploratory factor
analysis to test the possible factor structure of the MVS. Using a
principle components analysis approach, one factor emerged using
both the scree plot and eigenvalue >1 criteria. This factor ac-
counted for 71% of the variance. Finally, we tested the correlation
between the MVS and the MVSIS. The correlation was significant,
r = 0.69, p < .01. Importantly, there were no sex differences in mate
value scores (p > .05), suggesting that the MVS can be used for both
men and women3. It is important to be clear – we are not proposing
that men and women have the exact same traits equally contributing
to mate value (in fact, numerous studies e.g., Buss, 1989 would sug-
gest that they don’t), but that the output of the holistic assessment
employed by the MVS results in equivalent scores for men and wo-
men (indeed, this is one of particular strengths of the holistic
approach).
This study provides initial evidence that the MVS is a reliable
single-factored self-report measure of mate value. Our next study
was designed to subject the MVS to a more rigorous psychometric
evaluation.
3. Study Two
As mentioned earlier, there are many components of mate value
(such as attractiveness, likeability, friendliness) that are often used
2
An initial version of the Mate Value Scale included a fifth item: ‘‘Overall, how
would members of the same sex rate your level of desirability as a partner on the
following scale?’’ with the same response options as items one and two of the scale.
However, the inclusion of this item hurt the reliability of the measure, probably due
to interpretational ambiguity. In particular, although we intended the question to
measure the perceived perceptions of intrasexual competitors, some participants
interpreted the question as asking if they thought members of the same sex were
sexually attracted to them. Given the interpretational ambiguities and the negative
impact on the scale’s reliability, we removed the item from the Mate Value Scale.
3
Additionally (across all three studies) we ran analyses on the MVS separately for
men and women along with heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Conclusions about
the reliability and factor structure remained unchanged, and as such, we are reporting
the fullest form of the data.
74 J.E. Edlund, B.J. Sagarin / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 72–77
as a proxy for mate value in the literature and have been validated
as capturing a component of mate value. This study was designed
to subject the MVS to a rigorous psychometric evaluation. Partici-
pants completed a battery of measures designed to assess internal
consistency and the factor structure of the MVS, test–retest reli-
ability, and convergent and discriminant validities.
3.1. Study Two method
3.1.1. Participants
One hundred students participated in this study. There were 29
men and 71 women, mean participant age was 19.10 years
(SD = 1.12). There were 78 Caucasians, 8 Hispanics, 6 Asian Amer-
icans, 3 African Americans, and 5 self-identified others/bi-racial.
The majority of participants were heterosexual (96 heterosexual,
3 homosexual, 1 bisexual).
3.1.2. Procedure
Upon arrival in the laboratory, participants individually com-
pleted a consent form and then completed a paper and pencil sur-
vey packet. The packet consisted of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Measure, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne
& Marlowe, 1960), the MVS, the Reysen Likeability Scale (Reysen,
2005), the MVSIS, and the MVI. Participants were also queried
about a number of demographic variables. At the conclusion of
the packet, participants were asked if the research assistant could
take two photos of the participant (a head shot, and a full-body
shot). These photos were then independently rated by research
assistants for attractiveness (1 man, 2 women), and the scores
were averaged (rater attractiveness ratings correlated at r = .54, p
< .01). Finally, after one month, participants were sent an email
invitation to participate in an online follow-up study (which con-
sisted of only the MVS and demographics). Seventy-three partici-
pants completed this follow-up study. This subsample had
similar demographics to the full sample (mean age = 19.00,
SD = 1.05).
3.2. Study Two results
3.2.1. Reliability
The first analysis of interest was an evaluation of the reliability
of the MVS. The internal consistency of the MVS was good, a = .89.
We also evaluated the reliability of the retest sample obtained
from participants. The reliability of the MVS in the retest was also
good, a = .92. A comparison of the scores from time one and time
two suggests that the MVS is highly stable over time with good
test–retest reliability, r = .85, p < .001.
3.2.2. Factor structure
We next subjected our measure to a confirmatory factor analy-
sis. The v2 statistic for a one-factor model (v2 = 298.69, p < .001)
was significant, but the v2/df ratio for the model (2.98) represents
a good fit (Kline, 2005). Additionally, the values of the CFI (0.91)
and IFI (0.91) are indicative of a good model fit, further suggesting
that a one-factor solution is appropriate.
3.2.3. Validity
We next evaluated the convergent validity of the MVS. As ex-
pected, the MVS correlated highly with the other measures of mate
value. Specifically, the MVS correlated significantly with the MVSIS
(r = .81, p < .001) and the MVI (r = .51, p < .001). Additionally, the
MVS correlated significantly with likeability (r = .56, p < .001),
self-esteem (r = .56, p < .001), and attractiveness (r = .23, p = .014).
Finally, we evaluated the discriminant validity of the MVS by com-
paring it with social desirability. There was no correlation between
the MVS and social desirability (r = .08, p = .43).
3.3. Study Two discussion
In this study, we subjected the MVS to a battery of psychomet-
ric evaluations. We found that the MVS has strong internal consis-
tency along with a high level of test–retest reliability. Additionally,
the factor structure of the MVS suggests that it is measuring one
underlying dimension of mate value. Finally, we demonstrated that
the MVS seems to be measuring mate value (by its strong correla-
tions with other mate value measures) and that the MVS aligns
with previously established components of mate value such as
likeability and attractiveness (as assessed by independent ratings
of photographs). As such, we now believe that we have a reliable
and valid measure of mate value. Our next step is to take this
measure and determine its usefulness in a previously established
research line – the sex difference in jealousy.
4. Study Three
According to the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy
(Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992), ancestral women’s
challenge of ensuring paternal investment exerted selective pres-
sures that increased women’s jealousy in response to emotional
infidelity, whereas ancestral men’s challenge of paternal uncer-
tainty exerted selective pressures that increased men’s jealousy
in response to sexual infidelity. Numerous studies have demon-
strated that this occurs cross-culturally (Buunk, Solano, Zurriaga,
& González, 2011), across a number of response scales (Edlund &
Sagarin, 2009), and in a nationally representative sample (Zengel,
Edlund, & Sagarin, 2013).
However, to date, there have been very few moderators to this
effect that have been identified (although there are exceptions
such as: attachment style: Levy & Kelley, 2010; previous infidelity
experience: Tagler, 2010; Socioeconomic status: Zengel et al.,
2013). Additionally, concerns have been raised that the sex differ-
ence in jealousy is an artifact of the way in which jealousy has been
measured (e.g., DeSteno, 2010; however, see Edlund (2011) and
Sagarin et al., 2012 for rebuttals). Additional concerns have been
raised that the sex difference in jealousy does not reproduce in par-
ticipants who have experienced an actual infidelity (Harris, 2002;
although some researchers have had success in demonstrating
the sex difference in jealousy in a working population that has
experienced an infidelity: Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Farc, & Sagarin,
2006).
The purpose of this study is to apply our newly created measure
of mate value as a moderator to the sex difference in jealousy
among men and women who have experienced an actual infidelity.
Based on the research that suggests that evolutionarily influenced
preferences are magnified in higher mate value participants (e.g.,
Millar, 2013), we hypothesized that participants who were higher
in mate value would show increased levels of sex differentiated
jealousy in response to an actual infidelity.
4.1. Study Three method
4.1.1. Participants
279 students completed the demographics for this study. Of
these participants, 98 participants had experienced an infidelity.
There were 151 men and 121 women (along with 7 who did not
identify gender); mean participant age was 21.10 years
(SD = 3.54). There were 210 Caucasians, 21 African Americans, 17
Asian Americans, 12 Hispanics, and 16 self-identified others/
bi-racial. The majority of the participants were heterosexual (250
heterosexual, 9 homosexual, 17 bisexual). The average age of par-
ticipants who had experienced an infidelity was 20.96 years
(SD = 5.09).
 J.E. Edlund, B.J. Sagarin / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 72–77
Fig. 1. Interaction between mate value, gender, and type of infidelity.
4.1.2. Procedure
Participants initially completed a demographics section that as-
sessed gender, race, age, sexual orientation, and previous experi-
ences with infidelity. Participants who indicated that they had
experienced an infidelity were then directed to answer questions
about their reactions to their most recent infidelity experience.
Participants were asked two questions: ‘‘To what degree did you
experience jealousy over the emotional (sexual) aspects of your
partner’s infidelity?’’ Participants indicated their level of jealousy
on a seven-point scale that had the anchors labeled ‘‘Not at all’’
and ‘‘Completely’’.
4.2. Study Three Results
4.2.1. Mate Value Scale properties
Our first analysis of interest was a re-evaluation of the MVS. The
MVS had good reliability (a = .81) along with a uni-dimensional
factor structure (CFI & IFI > .90). As such, we combined the four
items into one scale and used it as a moderator in our evaluation
of the jealousy responses.
4.2.2. Jealousy responses
There was a three-way interaction between mate value, gender,
and type of infidelity (see Fig. 1), F(1, 94) = 9.13, p < .01, partial
eta = .09. The interaction took the form that participants who were
higher in mate value experienced a stronger reaction to evolution-
arily relevant threat (sexual for men, emotional for women) than
did lower mate value participants. Specifically, at 1 SD above the
mean on mate value, the simple Gender by Type of Infidelity inter-
action was significant in the theory-consistent direction,
t(94) = 2.78, p < .01, whereas at 1 SD below the mean on mate va-
lue, the interaction was non-significant with the means aligning in
the opposite direction, t(94) = 1.48, p = .14.
4.3. Study Three discussion
In this study, we successfully used the newly created Mate Va-
lue Scale as a moderator in an established research paradigm. We
demonstrated that the previously established sex difference in
jealousy effect is magnified for participants who are higher in mate
value. In addition, we further established that the Mate Value Scale
has a uni-dimensional structure and excellent reliability for a short
personality measure.
75
5. General discussion
Across three studies, we demonstrated that the Mate Value
Scale represents an efficient, reliable, and valid manner of collect-
ing self-report data on mate value. We demonstrated that the Mate
Value Scale has excellent internal consistency for a short measure
along with excellent test–retest reliability. We demonstrated
across three studies that the scale represents a single factor of mate
value (as assessed through PCA and CFA). Beyond this, we demon-
strated that the scale has convergent validity with previously dem-
onstrated components of mate value, discriminant validity with a
measure of social desirability, and utility as a moderator of the
sex difference in jealousy.
The Mate Value Scale can also be applied to assess the mate va-
lue of other targets. Patel (2010) and Berchtold (2013), for exam-
ple, adapted the MVS to measure the mate value of participants’
partners by substituting ‘‘your partner’s’’ for ‘‘your’’ in the first
two questions and ‘‘your partner’’ for ‘‘you’’ in the last two ques-
tions. By using MVS measures of both participants’ mate value
and participants’ perceptions of their partner’s mate value, Patel
(2010) demonstrated that greater mate value discrepancy was
associated with the suppression of jealousy. Likewise, Berchtold
(2013) found that individuals with partners with higher mate
value showed greater levels of chronic jealousy compared to indi-
viduals with partners with lower mate value. We believe that this
scale could also easily be applied as a moderator to research look-
ing at mate preferences (Buss & Shackelford, 2008), life and death
decisions (e.g., Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994), abortion
decisions (e.g., Anglin et al., 2010), speed dating decisions (Tidwell,
Eastwick, & Finkel, 2013), or any number of other research
domains. In our study, we investigated the MVS in the context of
long-term mate desirability; future research should explore
whether the MVS would be useful in research in short-term
contexts.
Overall, across three studies, we demonstrated that the Mate
Value Scale is a single-factor, reliable, and valid measure of mate
value. We believe that this measure could easily be incorporated
into developmental, evolutionary, and social psychological re-
search paradigms to further understand how this important con-
struct influences human cognition, emotion, and behavior.
Appendix A
Many people look at specific characteristics in choosing their po-
tential marriage partners. Some common desirable traits include:
76 J.E. Edlund, B.J. Sagarin / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 72–77

Overall, how would you rate your level of desirability as a partner on the following scale?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Extremely
undesirable desirable

Overall, how would members of the opposite sex rate your level of desirability as a partner on the following scale?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Extremely
undesirable desirable

Overall, how do you believe you compare to other people in desirability as a partner on the following scale?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very much Lower than Slightly Average Slightly Higher than Very much
lower than average lower than higher than average higher than
average average average average

Overall, how good of a catch are you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very bad Bad catch Somewhat Average Somewhat Good catch Very good
catch bad of a catch good of a catch
catch catch

being socially exciting, age, being physically attractive, having a
good sense of humor, being kind and understanding, having good
financial/professional status, being of high intelligence, being in
good health, and liking children.
Note: The instructions provided to participants and first question
were adapted from Brase and Guy (2004). We added ‘‘being kind and
understanding’’ to the instructions as a prosocial orientation has
been identified as a desired trait in a mate (e.g., Jensen-Campbell,
Graziano, & West, 1995). We also changed the response scale from
nine points used by Brase and Guy to seven points based on
Krosnick’s (1999) recommendations regarding bipolar scales.
References
Anglin, S. M., Amaral, M., & Edlund, J. E. (2010). Keep the mate or keep the child:
Abortion decisions under different conditions. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49, 374–379.
Bailey, D. H., Durante, K. M., & Geary, D. C. (2011). Men’s perception of women’s
attractiveness is calibrated to relative mate value and dominance of the
women’s partner. Evolution And Human Behavior, 32(2), 138–146. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.08.004.
Behrmann-Godel, J., Gerlach, G., & Eckmann, R. (2006). Kin and population
recognition in sympatric Lake Constance perch (Perca fluviatilis L): Can
assortative shoaling drive population divergence? Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology, 59, 461–468.
Berchtold, B. (2013). Sexual boundaries and jealousy management in swingers. DeKalb,
IL: Northern Illinois University (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current
Anthropology, 30, 654–676.
Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 471–484.
Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules
for altruism: Weighting cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological
importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
773–789.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention
tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
346–361.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in
jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes,
economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment.
Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134–146.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century
of American mate preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 491–503.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender
differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal
Relationships, 9, 271–278.
Buunk, A. P., Solano, A., Zurriaga, R., & González, P. (2011). Gender differences in the
jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics: A study in Spain and Argentina.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(3), 323–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0022022111403664.
Collins, S. A. (2000). Men’s voices and women’s choices. Animal Behavior, 60,
773–780.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent
of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
DeSteno, D. (2010). Mismeasuring jealousy: A cautionary comment on Levy and
Kelley (2010). Psychological Science, 21, 1355–1356.
Edlund, J. E. (2008). Sex, lies, and partner choice: an investigation into perceived mate
value and its factor structure, content, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant
validities (Doctoral Dissertation). Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.
Edlund, J. E. (2011). Jealousy reconsidered: A reply to DeSteno (2010). Evolutionary
Psychology, 9, 116–117.
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M. M., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Sex
differences in jealousy in response to actual infidelity experiences. Evolutionary
Psychology, 4, 462–470.
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: The
misinterpretation of non-significant results as refuting the theory. Personal
Relationships, 16, 67–78.
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Mate value and mate preferences: An
investigation into decisions made with and without constraints. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49, 835–839.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating:
Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brian Sciences, 23,
575–644.
Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., Spiewak, S., Neto, F., et al. (2012).
Mate value and self-esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PloS One, 7(4),
e36106.
Griffiths, R. W., & Kunz, P. R. (1973). Assortative mating: A study of physiognomic
homogamy. Social Biology, 4, 448–453.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual
adults. Psychological Science, 13, 7–12.
Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, and
strategic interference: The psychology of deception between the sexes.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 3–23.
Herrmann, A., & Pfister, H. (2013). Simple measures and complex structures: Is it
worth employing a more complex model of personality in Big Five inventories?
Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 599–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jrp.2013.05.004.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial
orientation, an female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427–440.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadall, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of
Personality, 48, 97–116.
Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers:
Structural relations among beck depression inventory scores and perceived
mate values. Journal of Affective Disorders, 75, 131–148.
 J.E. Edlund, B.J. Sagarin / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 72–77
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Maximizing questionnaire quality. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Landolt, M., Lalumiere, M., & Quinsey, V. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex
variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 16, 3–23.
Levy, K. N., & Kelley, K. M. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: A contribution from
attachment theory. Psychological Science, 21, 168–173.
Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Assortative mating for perceived facial
personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 973–984.
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in
newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 304–326.
Kille, D. R., Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2013). Tall, dark, and stable: Embodiment
motivates mate selection preferences. Psychological Science, 24(1), 112–114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457392.
Moravec, M. L., Streidter, G. F., & Burley, N. T. (2013). Assortative mating based on
contact call similarity in Budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus. Ethology, 112,
1108–1116.
Millar, M. (2013). Menstrual cycle changes in mate preferences for cues associated
with genetic quality: The moderating role of mate value. Evolutionary
Psychology, 11(1), 18–35.
Patel, L. (2010). The level of jealousy individuals experience and express: Moderated by
their own mate value, their partner’s mate value, and their rival’s mate value.
DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Pflüger, L. S., Oberzaucher, E., Katina, S., Holzleitner, I. J., & Grammer, K. (2012). Cues
to fertility: Perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive
View publication stats
77
success. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 708–714. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.005.
Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen likeability scale. Social
Behavior and Personality, 33, 201–208.
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Zengel, B., et al.
(2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 33, 595–614.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Is short-term mating the maladaptive result of insecure
attachment? A test of competing evolutionary perspectives. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 757–768.
Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B. B., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural
consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 31(3), 176–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.001.
Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2012). He said, she said: Men’s reports of mate value
and mate retention behaviors in intimate relationships. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53(4), 459–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.020.
Tagler, M. J. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: Comparing the influence of previous
infidelity among college students and adults. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 1(4), 353–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550610374367.
Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity
predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-
dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 199–215.
Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Hiag, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004).
Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed
couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.
Zengel, B., Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy in response
to infidelity: Evaluation of demographic moderators in a national random
sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1), 47–51.