Definition
The dual-mating hypothesis is an important guiding perspective in evolutionary psychology that posits how women may have evolved to develop two overlapping strategies when choosing mates: (A) a short-term strategy that prioritizes men who are high in physical attractiveness and therefore possess “good genes” and (B) a long-term strategy that prioritizes men who are more likely to invest resources in potential offspring (Gangestad and Thornhill 1998; Pillsworth et al. 2004).
Introduction
These strategies are often at odds with each other, as the potential mate who possesses the highest-quality genes is often not the same potential mate who is most likely to invest resources in potential offspring. From the dual-mating hypothesis, researchers have highlighted how women who are faced with this trade-off manage their strategies accordingly, i.e., when they are likely to prioritize genetic fitness versus resource provision from their partners.
Short-Term or Long-Term Strategies?
A...
References
Anderson, U. S., Perea, E. F., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 804–808.
Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113(3), 628.
Beall, A. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2013). Women are more likely to wear red or pink at peak fertility. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1837–1841.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.
Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(4), 23–29.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 147470490800600116.
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., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149.
Cantú, S. M., Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Weisberg, Y. J., Durante, K. M., & Beal, D. J. (2014). Fertile and selectively flirty: Women’s behavior toward men changes across the ovulatory cycle. Psychological Science, 25(2), 431–438.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Better than rational: Evolutionary psychology and the invisible hand. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 327–332.
Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women’s choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1451–1460.
Fales, M. R., Gildersleeve, K. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2014). Exposure to perceived male rivals raises men’s testosterone on fertile relative to nonfertile days of their partner’s ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 65(5), 454–460.
Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1167–1183.
Gangestad, S. W., & Haselton, M. G. (2015). Human estrus: Implications for relationship science. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 45–51.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 265(1399), 927–933.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partner’s mate–retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269(1494), 975–982.
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1205.
Harris, C. R., Pashler, H., & Mickes, L. (2014). Elastic analysis procedures: An incurable (but preventable) problem in the fertility effect literature. Comment on Gildersleeve, Haselton, and Fales (2014). Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1260–1264.
Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of women’s desires and men's mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and behavior, 49(4), 509–518.
Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 68–95). Hoboken: Wiley.
Larson, C. M., Haselton, M. G., Gildersleeve, K. A., & Pillsworth, E. G. (2013). Changes in women’s feelings about their romantic relationships across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 63(1), 128–135.
Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23(2), 146–151.
Pillsworth, E. G., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2004). Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 55–65.
Roney, J. R., Hanson, K. N., Durante, K. M., & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men’s faces: Women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 273(1598), 2169–2175.
Scelza, B. A. (2013). Choosy but not chaste: multiple mating in human females. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 22(5), 259–269.
Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 8(4), 371–389.
Thompson, M. E., & Muller, M. N. (2016). Comparative perspectives on human reproductive behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 61–66.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection (Vol. 136, p. 179). Cambridge, MA: Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.
Wood, W., & Carden, L. (2014). Elusiveness of menstrual cycle effects on mate preferences: Comment on Gildersleeve, Haselton, and Fales (2014). Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1265–1271.
Wood, W., Kressel, L., Joshi, P. D., & Louie, B. (2014). Meta-analysis of menstrual cycle effects on women’s mate preferences. Emotion Review, 6(3), 229–249.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Weisberg, Y., Kim, J. (2018). Dual-Mating Hypothesis. In: Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_238-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_238-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences