Sex differences in the design features of socially contingent mating adaptations

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):278-279 (2005)
Schmitt's study provides strong support for sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt 1993) – that men and women both have evolved a complex menu of mating strategies, selectively deployed depending on personal, social, and ecological contexts. It also simultaneously refutes social structural theories founded on the core premise that women and men are sexually monomorphic in their psychology of human mating. Further progress depends on identifying evolved psychological design features sensitive to the costs and benefits of pursuing each strategy from the menu, which vary across mating milieus. These design features, like many well-documented mating adaptations, are likely to be highly sex-differentiated.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X05260053
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,777
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Mating and Marriage, Husbands and Lovers.Stephen Beckerman - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):590-591.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

21 ( #239,626 of 2,177,828 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #317,251 of 2,177,828 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums