THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING 1

The Role of Accurate Self-Assessments in Optimising Mate Choice

Kaitlyn T. Harper1, Fiona Stanley1, Morgan J. Sidari1, Anthony J. Lee2, and Brendan P. Zietsch1

1Centre for Psychology and , School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 2Faculty of Natural Sciences, Division of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland

Author Note Kaitlyn T. Harper https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9597-872X Kaitlyn graduated her Bachelor of Psychological Science (Honours) at The University of Queensland in 2020. She is now completing her PhD at UQ. Fiona Stanley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7804-0078 Fiona graduated her Bachelor of Psychological Science (Honours) at The University of Queensland in 2020. Morgan J. Sidari https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5315-4546 Morgan graduated her Psychological Science (Honours) at The University of Queensland in 2016. She is now completing her PhD at UQ. Anthony J. Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8288-3393 Anthony completed his PhD at The University of Queensland in 2015, and is currently a lecturer at the University of Stirling. Brendan P. Zietsch https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0274-6140 Brendan completed his PhD at QIMR Berghofer and University of Queensland in 2009, and is currently Associate Professor at UQ. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Corresponding author email: [email protected] Word Count: 3316 THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 2

Abstract

Individuals are thought to seek the best possible romantic partner in exchange for their own desirability. We investigated the strategies that individuals use when choosing a partner, and whether these strategies optimise the quality of mutually interested partners (‘matches’).

Further, we investigated whether these matching outcomes were affected by the accuracy of one’s self-perceived mate value. Participants (1532 total) took part in a speed dating experiment whereby they rated themselves and others on attractiveness variables and indicated their willingness to date each opposite sex partner they interacted with. We then calculated participants’ selectivity, minimum and maximum standards, accuracy, match quality, and match quantity. Individuals were somewhat accurate in their self-evaluations, and these self-evaluations guided individual’s minimum and maximum quality standards for a potential partner, leading to higher quality matches. These findings extend social exchange models by emphasising the adaptiveness of accurate self-evaluations in mating contexts.

Key words: Mate choice, attraction, dating, self-perception, social exchange theory THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 3

The Role of Accurate Self-Assessments in Optimising Mate Choice Choosing a romantic partner can be one of the most critical decisions a person makes in their lifetime, both in an evolutionary and modern context. Mate choice directly affects , and the quality of mating relationships has been strongly associated with mental and physical health (Robles et al., 2014). Given its importance, it is expected that humans use strategies to optimise mate choice and resulting outcomes. Social exchange theory applies economic principles to interpersonal behaviour, and suggests that individuals act to seek relationships which offer optimal rewards (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibout &

Kelley, 1959). According to this theory, each individual attempts to attract the most valuable mate in exchange for their own desirability, resulting in a mating market (Cameron et al.,

1977). Whether due to an evolutionarily adapted mating psychology or simple rationality, we would expect individuals to accurately consider their own mate value and adjust their choosiness accordingly to increase their chances of finding the optimal partner (Fisher et al.,

2008; Regan, 1998).

Consistent with social exchange theory, highly desirable individuals should expect to pair with potential romantic partners of similarly high mate value, and should therefore demonstrate higher mate value standards (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Kurzban & Weeden,

2005). There is existing evidence consistent with this prediction, though with some caveats.

In one study, participants reported their minimum and ideal standards on 22 desirable traits of a potential partner, and those with a higher self-reported mate value had higher standards

(Edlund & Sagarin, 2010). However, given the disconnect between stated preferences and those revealed through behaviour (Eastwick et al., 2011; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005), this evidence should be regarded as tentative. Another study showed participants with higher self- perceived mate value reported more interest in dating profiles of physically attractive targets, perhaps (but not necessarily) indicating higher general standards (Ha et al., 2010). The only THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 4 study to test directly whether self-perceived mate value is linked to higher partner standards found equivocal results. Todd et al. (2007) found that speed daters’ self-reported overall mate value did not predict the mate value of their partner choices, but for women, self-reported did predict selection of men with higher mate value. The study involved only 46 participants, giving poor statistical power to detect realistic effect sizes. In all, the existing evidence is suggestive but inconclusive of an effect of self-perceived mate value on choosiness.

To the extent that individuals use their self-evaluations to adjust their choosiness, those with high self-evaluations should perceive fewer people to meet their standard.

Accordingly, Kurzban and Weeden (2005) found that participants with higher objective mate values were more selective in a speed-dating experiment, saying yes to dating fewer people.

Conversely, in a similar speed-dating study, Todd et al. (2007) found that all women chose a similarly limited number of partners, whose mate value matched their own perceived physical attractiveness. This meant that even women with low self-evaluations were choosy, but by the exclusion of men above their standard. Although social exchange theory would assert that those with higher quality standards should be more selective overall, it could also be true that all individuals learn their mate value and develop preferences for others of their own standard. This would be somewhat consistent with the matching hypothesis: a theory suggesting that partner preferences vary as a function of one’s own attractiveness, meaning less attractive people should prefer similarly unattractive people (Van Straaten et al., 2009).

If individuals apply mate choice strategies based on self-perceived attractiveness, as social exchange theory and previous findings suggest, a key question to ask is whether these processes actually optimise successful matches? Kurzban and Weeden (2005) found that men with higher standards tended to match with women who were thinner, had more attractive bodies, and were younger. Similarly, women with higher standards mostly matched with THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 5 males who were taller, had more attractive bodies and faces, and were younger. Hence, those who strategically adjusted their choosiness matched with partners with greater levels of evolutionarily desirable traits.

While higher self-evaluations and associated choosiness seem to result in higher quality matches, it could be assumed that using self-perceptions to guide mating decisions would only be useful to the degree that they are accurate. Back et al. (2011) found individuals’ self-perceived mate values to be weakly correlated with others’ evaluations, meaning self-evaluations are imprecise to some extent. Hypothetically, overestimation of one’s own mate value could lead to wasted resources and continual rejection, while underestimation could result in pairing with a suboptimal partner. No research has investigated how matching success is impacted by the accuracy of one’s self-evaluations, making this an important focus for the current study.

Here, we investigate these issues using a large speed dating sample (N=1,501 participants). Given the strong statistical power and ecological validity provided by 5,263 speed date interactions, we are able to clarify effects about which previous studies were inconclusive, as well as posing new questions. In particular, we test whether self-perceived mate value predicts minimum and maximum mate value standards, the number of people participants are willing to date, and the quality of successful matches. We also test whether accuracy of self-evaluations relates to the number of matches individuals have, and whether it moderates the association between self-perceived mate value and the quality of successful matches. Answering these questions will clarify how individuals use perception of their own mate value to guide their mate choices. THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 6

Methods

Participants

Participants were 1501 first-year psychology students from The University of

Queensland (48% men; mean age = 19.46 years, SD = 2.75 years). Recruitment was through the university’s research participant scheme as part of a larger study between 2010 and 2019.

Students were offered course credit for their participation in the study, advertised as ‘Speed-

Meeting Study’. Inclusion criteria required participants to be heterosexual and native English speakers.

Demographics. Sex was the only demographic information relevant to this study.

Self-ratings. A single item rating of overall attractiveness was used to measure self- perceived mate value. This was implemented given the benefits of holistic mate value scales over component sum-averaged scales (Edlund & Sagarin, 2014). Participants responded to,

“Overall, how would you rate your own attractiveness?” on a 7-point scale, where 1 = well below average and 7 = well above average. Self-ratings of body and face attractiveness were also made on the same scale.

Partner ratings. Participants evaluated each partner they interacted with on various features, including overall, bodily, and facial attractiveness. For example, “Overall, I would rate their attractiveness as…” All attractiveness items were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (well below average) to 7 (well above average). Participants also indicated their interest in each partner by indicating yes or no to the item, “Would you go on a date with this person?” THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 7

Procedure

Each speed dating session had a maximum of four males and four females. Speed dates were conducted in opposite-sex pairs only. The room was set up with four speed date stations, spread 1.7m apart to ensure participants were not distracted by surrounding speed- dates.

Pre-date. Males and females were taken to separate rooms and given an information sheet including information about confidentiality and voluntary participation. Participants then completed the pre-questionnaire on iPads, which included the demographic and self- rating measures. Once completed, participants were taken to the main room and seated across from their first speed-date partner.

Interaction. Participants were instructed to talk about any topic for three minutes until the bell sounded. After the bell, participants were asked to complete the partner survey whilst holding up their iPads to ensure the other person would not see their responses.

Experimenters supervised the room until it was evident everyone had finished. Participants of one sex would then rotate to the next station, and this process was repeated until all opposite- sex pairs interacted. The sex of the rotating participants was counterbalanced across sessions.

If there was an uneven ratio of participants, the extra participant waited quietly until the next speed date.

Post-date. After the final speed date, participants completed the post-questionnaire, which contained items not relevant to this study. They were then given a debrief sheet and thanked for their participation.

Table 1

Descriptions of created variables and their calculations THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 8

Variable Description Calculation Accuracy of self-perceived How close an individual’s The absolute difference overall attractiveness perceptions of their own between an individual’s self- attractiveness is to ratings and other’s given attractiveness ratings from ratings of overall others attractiveness (values closer to zero represent greater accuracy)

Directional accuracy of self- An individual’s The directional difference perceived overall over/underestimation of between an individual’s self- attractiveness their attractiveness ratings and others’ given compared to attractiveness ratings of overall ratings from others attractiveness (values closer to zero represent greater accuracy)

Selectivity Number of people an Proportion of “yes” individual said yes to dating responses out of total again opportunities (values closer to zero represent greater selectivity)

Minimum standard Lowest overall The lowest mean rated attractiveness of any target attractiveness (omitting the the participant said yes to focal participant’s rating) of all partners the participant said yes to

Maximum standard Highest overall The highest mean rated attractiveness of any target attractiveness (omitting the the participant said yes to focal participant’s rating) of all partners the participant said yes to

Average standard Mean overall attractiveness The mean rated of any target the participant attractiveness (omitting the said yes to focal participant’s rating) of all partners the participant said yes to

Match quality The average quality of Average rated overall individuals the participant attractiveness of targets matched with (i.e. both (omitting the focal partners said yes) participant’s score) with whom the participant matched

Match quantity The number of matches for The number of individuals THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 9

an individual (i.e. both the focal participant partners said yes to a matched with as a potential date) proportion of the number of individuals they met

Table 1 describes how additional variables were calculated. Accuracy variables were first calculated as regression residual scores from the relationship between self-rated attractiveness and received attractiveness. However, we decided this was unsuitable, as directional accuracy was strongly correlated with received overall attractiveness (r = .99).

This was a result of the weak correlation between self-rated overall attractiveness and received overall attractiveness (r = .10). Consequently, difference scores were used to represent accuracy instead. When calculated this way, the relationship between directional accuracy and received attractiveness was still present, although weaker (r = .67). For this reason, received overall attractiveness was included as a control variable in the relevant model.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. Prior to conducting main analyses, the data were cleaned and checked for outliers. During this process, four cases which presented non-sensible values were deleted. Given the nature of some variables in this study, the sample size differed for each analysis. For instance, the ‘match quality’ variable represents the average attractiveness value of a participant’s matched partners; this requires participants to acquire at least one match to attain a value for the variable. Consequently, participants with no matches were treated as missing data for that variable. Missing data was removed pairwise THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 10 to retain maximum power for each analysis. Imputation methods for missing data would not be feasible given the nature of the derived variables and multilevel models.

Table 2

Means, standard deviations, and ranges of all variables

Variable Mean(SD) Min Max Males Females Total Self-perceived overall attractiveness (1-7) 4.77(0.80) 4.60(0.85) 4.68(0.83) 1.00 7.00 Self-perceived physical attractiveness (1-7) 4.49(0.82) 4.31(0.89) 4.40(0.86) 1.00 7.00 Directional accuracy (-6 to +6) -0.22(1.03) 0.15(1.14) -0.03(1.10) -4.33 5.00 Accuracy (0-6) 0.82(0.66) 0.90(0.71) 0.86(0.69) 0.00 5.00 Selectivity (0-1) 0.51(0.33) 0.43(0.33) 0.47(0.34) 0.00 1.00 Minimum standard (1-7) 4.61(0.87) 4.65(0.86) 4.63(0.86) 1.00 7.00 Maximum standard (1-7) 5.37(0.66) 5.20(0.69) 5.29(0.67) 2.50 7.00 Average standard (1-7) 5.00(0.63) 4.93(0.70) 4.97(0.67) 2.25 7.00 Match quantity (0-1) 0.31(0.34) 0.32(0.36) 0.32(0.35) 0.00 1.00 Match quality (1-7) 4.94(0.78) 4.84(0.77) 4.89(0.77) 2.00 6.67 Received overall attractiveness (1-7) 4.53(0.85) 4.69(0.85) 4.61(0.84) 1.30 7.00 Received physical attractiveness (1-7) 4.36(0.88) 4.54(0.87) 4.40(0.88) 1.67 6.50 Note. For directional accuracy, negative values indicate overestimation and positive values indicate underestimation.

Main Analyses

Sex was controlled for in all following analyses. Participants were somewhat accurate in their self-evaluations, as self-perceived overall attractiveness was positively correlated with overall attractiveness received from partners (γ=0.08, 95% CI 0.05 – 0.12, t=4.43, p<.001, N=1340). This analysis required multi-level modelling, as each participant’s received ratings for overall attractiveness were nested within the participant who gave the rating.

Participants’ self-perceived mate value appeared to influence their standards in partners. There was a significant positive main effect of self-perceived overall attractiveness on minimum mate value standards (ß=0.07, 95% CI 0.00 – 0.13, t=2.13, p=.037, N=981), as well as maximum mate value standards (ß=0.06, 95% CI 0.00 – 0.12, t=2.25, p=.045,

N=981). That is, the greater participants perceived their own mate value, the higher minimum THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 11 standards they set for their partners and the more willing they were to aim for dates higher in mate value. However, there was no significant main effect of self-perceived overall attractiveness on selectivity (ß=0.01, 95% CI -0.04 – 0.06, t=0.36, p=.721, N=1323). That is, participants were interested in a similar number of partners regardless of their own self- perceived mate value.

There was a significant positive main effect of self-rated overall attractiveness on match quality, indicating that the greater someone perceived their own mate value, the higher their matches’ mate values were on average (ß=0.12, 95% CI 0.03 – 0.22, t=2.64, p=.009,

N=661). While there was no significant effect of accuracy on match quality (ß=-0.01, 95% CI

-0.10 – 0.07, t=-0.34, p=.734, N=661), there was a significant interaction between self-rated overall attractiveness and accuracy (ß=-0.06, 95% CI -0.11 – -0.00, t=-2.13, p=.033, N=661).

That is, accuracy moderated the relationship between self-perceived overall attractiveness and match quality, such that the relationship was stronger for participants who had more accurate self-evaluations.

Last, when controlling for received overall attractiveness as well as sex, directional accuracy was negatively correlated with match quantity (ß=-0.05, 95% CI -0.10 – -0.00, t=-

1.98, p=.048, N=1296). As negative values indicate overestimation and positive value indicates underestimation, this relationship indicates that those who underestimated their mate value were likely to match with more partners, and those who overestimated were likely to match with less partners.

We also performed all analyses for self-perceived physical attractiveness (see

Supplementary Material), to allow comparison to earlier research that used this measure instead of overall attractiveness. Self-perceived physical attractiveness significantly predicted minimum standards, maximum standards, match quality, and received physical attractiveness. THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 12

However, the remaining analyses were non-significant. This is further discussed in the

Supplementary Material.

Discussion

Social exchange theory provides a model of mate choice where individuals seek relationships which offer optimal rewards, meaning every person aims to attract the most valuable partner possible given their own attractiveness (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibout &

Kelley, 1959). Past research has predominately supported this, as individuals tended to use their self-perceived mate value to guide their mating strategies (Edlund & Sagarin, 2010; Ha et al., 2010; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005). We aimed to clarify which strategies individuals use when choosing a mate and investigate the effectiveness of these strategies.

First, self-perceived overall attractiveness was associated, albeit weakly, with other-rated overall attractiveness, consistent with previous findings (Back et al., 2011). This result is also consistent with social exchange theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), which implies at its core that individuals need some amount of accurate insight to appropriately implement mating strategies and find the best possible partner in exchange for their own desirability. Without this finding, any speculations about self-evaluations and mate choice strategy would have been meaningless, given that such strategies would be based on a seemingly random variable.

We found that a participant’s minimum standard of partner they would date was positively predicted by the participant’s self-perceived overall attractiveness. This was expected based on social exchange theory and previous research. Presumably, participants with higher mate values recognised their own desirability and set their minimum standard higher, because they knew they could be successful. The success of this strategy is demonstrated in the finding that self-perceived overall attractiveness positively predicted the quality of a participant’s successful matches, and that this effect was strongest for participants THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 13 who had more accurate self-evaluations. This further supports social exchange theory, specifically its prediction that the population will stratify into couples matched by similar mate value (Hill & Reeve, 2004; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Kenrick et al., 1993). Our findings suggest that this stratification is most likely to occur when individuals’ self-evaluations are accurate.

As well as their minimum standards, participants’ maximum standards were also positively predicted by their self-perceived overall attractiveness. Participants did not tend to indicate interest in partners who were too far above their own self-perceived mate value.

Findings so far suggest that participants were interested in a specific range of partners determined by their own self-evaluations, rather than setting a minimum standard and being interested in anyone above that standard. To further support this, there was no relationship between participants’ self-evaluations and the number of partners they were interested in.

The finding that participants tended to be interested in partners around their own self- perceived mate value is consistent with the matching hypothesis, which posits that partner preferences vary as a function of one’s own attractiveness, meaning less attractive people should prefer similarly unattractive people (Van Straaten et al., 2009). However, there is a question of whether this preference is genuine, since there is evidence that attractiveness is universally perceived regardless of one’s own desirability (Lee et al., 2008). Therefore, it seems unlikely that a less attractive person’s preference for a partner of equally low attractiveness is driven by genuine preference for less attractive people. An alternative explanation is that those who see themselves as less attractive might be willing to reject more attractive partners as a protective strategy. Penke et al. (2007) suggest that humans have two preferences in a partner: someone in good overall condition (as cued by physical attractiveness), and someone they can securely attach. Potentially, those lower in self- THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 14 perceived mate value believe that partners higher in mate value would be unreliable in terms of attachment, as they could potentially ‘do better’ and leave them.

Related risks arise if an individual is inaccurate in their self-perceived mate value. Those who overestimate their own mate value could waste resources and face rejection, while those who underestimate could pair with a suboptimal partner. Given our findings suggest participants were interested in people around their own mate value, we might have expected that participants who either over- or underestimate their mate value would similarly miss out on matching opportunities as they are simply aiming in the wrong place. However, results indicated that participants who underestimated their mate value tended to get more matches than participants who overestimated their mate value. This discrepancy was resolved by reviewing the average self-perceived overall attractiveness in relation to the minimum, mean, and maximum standards in Table 2. The data suggest that participants are not necessarily interested in partners “around their own mate value”, but rather appear to be specifically interested in partners very similar to, or slightly above their own mate value. Figure 1 illustrates how participants who underestimated their mate value could have received more matches than those who overestimated their mate value. Participants who underestimate, because of the general tendency to aim slightly above one’s own value, may often end up aiming for participants of equal objective value to themselves who are likely to reciprocate interest. Participants who overestimate, however, are harmed by the tendency to ‘aim up’, as it causes them to be interested in participants well above their objective value who are unlikely to reciprocate interest. Given previous literature has found that people tend to set their minimum standards above their self-perceived mate value (Fletcher et al., 2014), and we found similar results (see Table 2), we are fairly confident in this explanation.

Figure 1 THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 15

Outcomes of over- and underestimation of self-perceived mate value

Note. The mate value interest ranges in this figure were roughly based on total results in table

2. Sexes shown in the figure are only for ease of interpretation.

Another possibility is that participants who overestimated their mate value were inherently different to participants who underestimated their mate value. If this inherent difference was able to be socially observed by the participants’ dates, this could have impacted the likelihood of the date reciprocating interest. For example, people who overestimate their mate value may have been be perceived as arrogant and therefore were less likely to receive interest from their dates.

Limitations and future directions

There are limitations to the current study. First, participants were predominately young, educated, high socio-economic status, and English speakers. More diverse samples will be needed to determine the extent to which these findings generalise to other demographic groups. Second, while preferences inferred from speed dates are more ecologically valid than self-reported preferences or ratings of photos or profiles, the 3-minute THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 16 length of the interactions may limit the degree to which these findings reflect real life courtship situations. Future research could examine similar questions in other contexts, such as romantic feelings within friendship pairs or groups. Third, we did not consider whether participants were searching for long-term versus short-term partners. Different mate choice strategies might be implemented by individuals with different mating goals, and this could be a fruitful direction for future study. Finally, it would be of interest to further investigate a point of uncertainty in the present findings: whether participants limit their maximum standard due to reasoning along the lines of “I don’t think they would be interested in me, so

I won’t express interest in them” or due to an underlying cognitive strategy expressed through genuine preference (“I’m just not attracted to them”). THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 17

References Back, M. D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., Sachse, K., Borkenau, P., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Why Mate Choices are not as Reciprocal as we Assume: The Role of Personality, Flirting and Physical Attractiveness. European Journal of Personality, 25(2), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.806

Cameron, C., Oskamp, S., & Sparks, W. (1977). Courtship American style: newspaper ads. Family Coordinator, 27-30.

Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993-1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024061

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(8), 835-839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.004

Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2014, 2014/07/01/). The Mate Value Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72-77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005

Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Kerr, P. S. G., Li, N. P., & Valentine, K. A. (2014). Predicting Romantic Interest and Decisions in the Very Early Stages of Mate Selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(4), 540-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213519481

Ha, T., Overbeek, G., & Engels, R. C. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1063-1071.

Hill, S. E., & Reeve, H. K. (2004). Mating games: The evolution of human mating transactions. Behavioral Ecology, 15(5), 748-756.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.

Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 951. THE ROLE OF ACCURATE SELF-ASSESSMENTS IN OPTIMISING MATE CHOICE 18

Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012

Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I'm Not Hot, Are You Hot or Not? Psychological Science, 19(7), 669-677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2008.02141.x

Penke, L., Todd, P. M., Lenton, A. P., & Fasolo, B. (2007). How self-assessments can guide human mating decisions. In Mating Intelligence (pp. 63-102). Psychology Press.

Regan, P. C. (1998, 1998/03/18). Minimum Mate Selection Standards as a Function of Perceived Mate Value, Relationship Context, and Gender. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v10n01_04

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140-187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859

Thibout, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York.

Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007, Sep 18). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 104(38), 15011-15016. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705290104

Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2009). Meeting Your Match: How Attractiveness Similarity Affects Approach Behavior in Mixed-Sex Dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 685-697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209332965