This article was downloaded by: [121.54.40.

36] On: 26 February 2012, At: 19:40 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Social Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

An Evolutionary Perspective on Effective vs. Ineffective Pickup Lines

Corwin Senko & Viviana Fyffe
a a a

State University of New YorkNew Paltz

Available online: 06 Nov 2010

To cite this article: Corwin Senko & Viviana Fyffe (2010): An Evolutionary Perspective on Effective vs. Ineffective Pick-up Lines, The Journal of Social Psychology, 150:6, 648-667 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365539

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 150(6), 648667 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

An Evolutionary Perspective on Effective vs. Ineffective Pick-up Lines

CORWIN SENKO VIVIANA FYFFE State University of New YorkNew Paltz

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

ABSTRACT. This experiment examined womens impressions of men using various pick-up lines. Seventy women imagined being approached by a man using a ippant and irtatious pick-up line, a direct complimentary line, or an innocuous line that masks his interest. His attractiveness varied too. They then considered him for long-term or short-term relationships. Matching a good dad hypothesis, they favored him for a long-term relationship if he used a direct or innocuous line instead of the ippant line, because the latter conveyed lower trustworthiness and intelligence. Matching a good genes hypothesis, they favored him for a short-term relationship if he was attractive instead of unattractive, regardless of his pick-up line, presumably because attractiveness signals heritable tness. Limitations and theoretical implications are discussed. Keywords: evolutionary psychology, gender issues, social perception

PEOPLE OFTEN RELY on a pick-up line or similar gambits to signal romantic interest (Cunningham & Barbee, 2008). Common experience tells us that some lines are more effective than others. This paper examines the effectiveness of pick-up lines from an evolutionary perspective. Below, we review the guiding evolutionary theories of mate selection and then apply them to the sparse literature on pick-up lines to derive the new hypotheses tested in the current study. Throughout, we focus on womens judgments of men using pick-up lines, because women are often more discriminating when selecting a partner (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and are also more often the recipients of pick-up lines.

The authors thank Glenn Geher and Alexandra Freund for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript, and Hannah DeRobertis, Elizabeth Steo, Sean Wilson, and Sarah Wolfe for their assistance with data collection. Address correspondence to Corwin Senko, State University of New YorkNew Paltz, Psychology Department, 600 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561, USA; senkoc@newpaltz. edu (e-mail).
648

Senko & Fyffe

649

Evolved Mating Strategies Peruse the personal ads and you will nd a catalogue of mate qualities sought by women: handsome, tall, athletic build, smart, well-educated, creative, funny, romantic, spontaneous, open-minded, kind, nurturing, family-oriented, and so forth. Unfortunately, few men possess all of these qualities, and the ones who do likely prefer similarly dazzling women, forcing most women to adjust and differentiate the absolutely necessary partner attributes from the merely desirable ones (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Evolutionary theories propose that women might be predisposed to make these choices in a manner that optimizes the viability of any offspring. Furthermore, according to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), the attributes women prize most heavily in a partner might depend on whether she seeks a long-term or a short-term relationship. We elaborate this postulate below. Due to their immense physical investment in bearing and nurturing offspring, women might have evolved a preference for long-term relationships over multiple short-term relationships (Trivers, 1972). Accordingly, women may have also evolved the strategy to seek men who appear likely to be a good dad and partner: that is, men who are willing to stay committed long-term to the family and who would be capable of acquiring and providing valued resources to its development (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Toward that end, women may be predisposed to prioritize two broad categories of partner traits: warmth-trustworthiness, signaled, for instance, by his honesty, reliability, kindness, and nurturance; and status-resources, signaled, for instance, by his current wealth or earning potential, intelligence, ambitiousness, dominance, and social status. Indeed, several studies show that women seeking long-term relationships prize these two broad qualities over many other attributes that, though highly desirable, are ultimately less essential in a long-term partnersuch as a mans attractiveness, romanticism, spontaneity, open-mindedness, sociability, creativity, and sense of humor (e.g., Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Of course, women do sometimes engage in short-term mating as well. Shortterm mating may have been evolutionarily adaptive in settings where ecological factors made long-term relationships untenable (e.g., environmental pathogens reducing the availability of men; see Schmitt, 2005). In such cases, it would have been protable to seek good genes to pass along to the potential newborn, thus aiding its health and viability in the absence of a long-term investment from the father (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Women may have therefore evolved preferences for short-term relationship partners who demonstrate honest signals of heritable tness. Given the modest link between physical attractiveness and health (Shackelford & Larsen, 1999), attractiveness may be one such signal. This may explain why women seeking short-term mates elevate the importance of

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

650

The Journal of Social Psychology

attractiveness and diminish the importance of trustworthiness, status-resources, romance, and other qualities that they would seek in long-term mates (Fletcher et al., 2000; Fletcher, Tither, OLoughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Scheib, 2001). Similarly, women who have greater openness toward short-term sexual relationships tend to favor an attractive yet disloyal (i.e., untrustworthy) man over an average-looking yet loyal man when asked to choose between the two (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992). In further support of this good genes hypothesis for short-term mating, several provocative studies show that womens partner preferences shift over their menstrual cycle in a manner that favors healthy, attractive men during the most fertile phase of their reproductive cycle. For example, they become more irtatious with attractive men during this phase than at any other phase of their cycle (Haselton & Gangestad, 2005). They also become more attracted during this phase to men who exhibit masculine physical features and behaviors: for example, highly symmetrical and masculine faces, deep voices, muscularity, and socially dominant displays toward other men (e.g., Frederick & Haselton, 2007; Gangestad, Garver-Apgar, Simpson, & Cousins, 2007; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Penton-Voak, Perrett, Castles, Burt, Koyabashi, & Murray, 1999), all of which are to some degree testosterone-dependent. Given that high testosterone levels during adolescence can compromise the immune system, men must possess high immuno-competence to withstand elevated testosterone levels. Thus, it may be that masculinity becomes more attractive during the womans most fertile phase because it serves as a potential cue to the mans heritable tness (Gangestad et al., 2007). In sum, the attributes that women weigh most heavily in a potential mate depend in part on the type of relationship being sought. Though most women desire attractive, trustworthy, and resource-laden men, only the select few can demand all of these qualities. Others must make trade-offs between the attributes. According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), these trade-offs are governed by the type of relationship being sought. When seeking a long-term partner, they should devalue attractiveness in favor of qualities in the man that suggest a good dad, that is, his degree of warmth-trustworthiness (kindness, reliability, etc.) and status-resources (earning potential, intelligence, etc.). When seeking a short-term partner, however, they should devalue those qualities in favor of ones that suggest good genes, such as attractiveness or muscularity. These hypotheses have been supported in several studies in which participants were asked to choose among hypothetical partners whose character was conveyed by explicit trait descriptions (Fletcher et al., 2004), detailed biographies (Greengross & Miller, 2008; Haselton & Miller, 2006; Scheib, 2001), or elaborately scripted behaviors (Gangestad et al., 2007). Each used a heavy and elaborate manipulation of the mans character. The current study contributes to this budding literature by using a more subtle approach. It examines womens

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Senko & Fyffe

651

impressions and mate selection choices based solely on the mans opening pick-up line. Pick-up Lines The research on pick-up lines is modest yet consistent, beginning with Kleinke, Meeker, and Staneski (1986), who examined the effectiveness of 100 pick-up lines commonly used in various settings, such as a bar, supermarket, and laundromat. Factor analyses revealed three general types of lines: ippant lines, direct lines, and innocuous lines. Flippant lines convey interest with humor, typically of a irtatious and sexual nature. Examples include You must be tired, because youve been running through my mind all day, and The only thing your eyes havent told me is your name. Direct lines convey interest with sincerity and attery. Examples include, It took a lot of courage to approach you, so can I at least ask your name? and You seem different. I like that. Innocuous lines start conversations with simple questions that conceal the line-users interest, thereby minimizing pain from potential rejection. Examples include, What do you think of the band? and Ive seen you before. Do you live around here? In another study, adults estimated the likely effectiveness of three versions of each type of pick-up line (Kleinke & Dean, 1990). All of the innocuous and direct lines were judged more effective than the ippant ones. Cunningham (1989) replicated this pattern in a tavern setting, where female patrons responded more positively when the male confederate used a direct or innocuous line instead of a ippant line. Similarly, in a pair of recent studies by Bale and colleagues, women read vignettes in which a male approached a woman with one of a variety of opening gambits (Bale, Morrison, & Caryl, 2006; Cooper, ODonnell, Caryl, Morrison, & Bale, 2007). They rated the irtatious ippant pick-up lines the least effective. In sum, ippant pick-up lines, so often used by men to impress women, often backre. The precise reason for this remains unknown, but it is likely due to the character conveyed by those lines. Compared to direct or innocuous lines, ippant lines evidently convey low intelligence (Cunningham, 1989) as well as several cues to low trustworthiness, such as selshness, promiscuity, and irresponsibility (Kleinke & Dean, 1990). The research in this area has been conned to examining womens attitudes toward the different lines or their willingness to converse with a man using them. It shows that ippant lines are ineffective in both respects. Strategic pluralism theory suggests a likely caveat, however: a womans receptiveness to various lines may depend on the type of relationship she seeks. If seeking a long-term relationship, then, in accord with the good dad hypothesis, she should, as in the prior studies, rebuff a man using the ippant line because it suggests untrustworthiness and/or unintelligence, both undesirable characteristics in a long-term partner. Insofar as women typically seek a long-term relationship (Buss & Schmitt, 1993),

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

652

The Journal of Social Psychology

it is likely that they approach conversation opportunities with that goal as the default, thus explaining why the ippant line has been judged so ineffective in the prior work. However, if instead of seeking a short-term relationship, then, in accord with the good genes hypothesis, her receptiveness should hinge more on the line-users attractiveness than his apparent trustworthiness or intelligence: She should be receptive if he is attractive and non-receptive if he is unattractive, no matter what line he uses. Overview of Present Research The present research tests this possibility by using the vignette approach common in prior studies (e.g., Bale et al., 2006; Kleinke & Dean, 1990) and validated in a Cunninghams (1989) eld study. It also examines several possible mediators for the anticipated effects of line type: specically, perceptions of the mans trustworthiness, intelligence, sociability, humor and creativity. Because warmth-trustworthiness (e.g., kindness, honesty, loyalty, potential for good parenting) is generally prized above all else when seeking a long-term mate (Fletcher et al., 1999; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsehnmeier, 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006) or any other long-standing collaborative partner (Cotrell, Neuberg, & Li, 2007), we expect trustworthiness to be the strongest mediator for receptiveness when considering the male target as a conversation partner or long-term partner. Yet intelligence is also a likely secondary mediator insofar as it provides a cue to ones status-resources (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Fletcher et al., 2000), which is also valued by women seeking a long-term partner. Perceptions of the mans sociability, humor, and creativity were also assessed for exploratory purposes because these qualities have routinely been shown to be highly valued by women (Cunningham, 1989; Greengross & Miller, 2008; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990), though these attributes appear to be less essential than trustworthiness and intelligence when seeking a long-term partner (Li et al., 2002). No mediators were assessed for the good genes hypothesis, as the healthy genes inference from attractiveness may be non-conscious (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). To summarize, four hypotheses guide this study. First, we expect to replicate the scant literature on pick-up lines by showing that female participants are less willing to engage in a conversation with the man if he uses a ippant line instead of a direct or innocuous line. Second, we also expect this exact pattern to be shown when participants consider him for a long-term relationship. Third, each of the above effects should be mediated by perceptions that the ippant-line user is less intelligent and/or less trustworthy than the other line users. Fourth, when instead considering the male for a short-term relationship, we expect that participants would be more interested in him if he is attractive than unattractive, and that the type of line he uses will have no bearing on their receptiveness.

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Senko & Fyffe

653

Pilot Study The prior studies on pick-up lines used two or three different lines for each category of pick-up lines in order to demonstrate the generalizability of the line type effects (Cunningham, 1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990). We adopted this approach as well. However, we opted to use different pick-up lines than in previous studies for two reasons. First, the ippant lines in those past studies were noteworthy for their lack of humor (e.g., You remind me of someone I used to date, Bet I can outdrink you). A quick perusal of books or websites devoted to pick-up lines, however, reveals that most ippant lines are intended to demonstrate a sense of humor, which is well-known to be widely valued in mate selection (Greengross & Miller, 2008; Kaufman, Kozbelt, Bromley, & Miller, 2008). We therefore sought funnier ippant lines for the current study (cf. Bale et al., 2006). Second, in the previous research on pick-up lines, the innocuous lines and, to a lesser extent, the direct lines, were framed as polite questions, whereas the ippant lines were typically framed as statements, sometimes rude ones (Cunningham, 1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990). It is possible that the apparent preference for the direct and innocuous lines was due simply to them being framed as questions, thus more easily allowing a response. We sought to eliminate this possible confound between line type and line format in the current study by using a question format for each pick-up line. Of course, replicating those prior studies with these new lines would remove any doubt about whether the question versus statement format could explain past ndings. We pilot tested 30 different pick-up lines, 15 ippant ones selected from various internet sites, and 15 non-ippant lines selected from the prior research. Twenty-nine female university students (M age = 21.5 years, SD = 3.18) rated each on funniness and ease of response, each on 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scales. The nine selected lines, provided below, all scored highest (between 34) on ease of response, and the three ippant lines all scored highest (above 3) on funniness: Flippant lines 1. Do you have any raisins? No? Well then, how about a date? 2. Can I get a picture of you so I can show Santa what I want for Christmas? 3. Shall we talk or continue irting from a distance? Direct lines 1. I saw you across the room and knew I had to meet you. Whats your name? 2. Hi, I saw you and thought, Im gonna kick myself all night if I dont at least come over and say Hi. So . . . Hi. Whats your name? 3. I feel a little embarrassed about this . . . but Id like to meet you. Whats your name?

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

654

The Journal of Social Psychology

Innocuous lines 1. What do you think of the band? 2. You look really familiar. Have we taken a class together? 3. Do you have the time? Method Overview

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Female college students imagined an unknown male student initiate contact with them by using a ippant, direct, or innocuous pick-up line. The stranger was either attractive, unattractive, or, in the control group, non-described. They rated him on several attributes, tapping his trustworthiness, intelligence, sociability, and sense of humor and creativity. Then they reported their willingness to carry a conversation, to engage in a long-term relationship, and to engage in a shortterm relationship with him. These relationship questions together comprised the three dependent measures, while the trait attributes served as possible mediators of any line type effects on the relationship measures. Thus, the experiment used a 3 (Line Type: ippant vs. direct vs. innocuous) x 3 (Mans appearance: attractive vs. unattractive vs. control) mixed design, with line type as the repeated measure. Participants Participants were 70 female students (M age = 21.0 years, SD = 2.13) at a northeastern university. Approximately 84% were Caucasian, 11% were Latino, and the remaining 5% were African-American or Asian-American. Thirty participants reported currently being involved in a long-term relationship, and 40 reported currently being single. We had no theoretical grounds for expecting effects of participants ethnicity or relationship status, nor did preliminary analyses indicate any effects on any of our measures. Both were therefore excluded from all analyses presented later. Each of the attractiveness conditions had 2324 participants. Materials & Procedure Participants were told that they were participating in a study about rst impressions of men using various pick-up lines. The experimenter gave each participant a packet of three questionnaires, asked them to complete the packet at their own pace, and assured them of the condentiality of their responses. The questionnaire packets cover sheet instructed participants to imagine the following scenario: As you are enjoying a night out at a campus event, you are approached

Senko & Fyffe

655

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

by a male student. You can tell he is interested in beginning a conversation with you. In the Attractive condition, they were told to imagine that You nd this stranger very attractive. In the Unattractive condition, they were told to imagine that You nd this stranger unattractive. No mention of his attractiveness was made in the control group.1 The cover sheet then explained that the packet contained three similar questionnaires, each beginning with a pick-up line that she should imagine was being used by the male stranger. The three questionnaires were identical except that one gave the ippant line, another the direct line, and another the innocuous line. The order of the three line types was counterbalanced. As described above, we used three versions of each line. The version of lines was divided equally among participants. Beneath the pick-up line, each questionnaire asked participants to evaluate the target on several desirable trait attributes in a mate on a 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely) Likert-type scale. These included his Trustworthiness (trustworthy, kind, honest, reliable, likely to be a good parent; values across the three types of pick-up lines ranged from .88 .92), taken from Fletcher et al.s (1999) measure of warmth-trustworthiness, as well as the mans Intelligence (intelligent and smart; range = .81 .86), Sociability (sociable, friendly, and condent; range = .70 .80), and Humor (funny and creative; range = .80 .88). Each questionnaire concluded with the following paragraph dening different relationships types:
There are many different types of relationships one can engage in with another person. For the purposes of this study, we are considering a long-term relationship as a committed relationship lasting for at least a few months. Short-term relationships can be either a hook-up or a brief sexual ing.

After reading this paragraph, participants completed the three dependent variable measures, each assessed with a single-item on the same 17 scale as above: How likely is it that you would carry on a conversation with him?; If you were interested in a short-term relationship, to what degree would you consider this person?; and If you were interested in a long-term relationship, to what degree would you consider this person?2

Results Line Version Analysis As in the past studies, this study used three ippant lines, three direct lines, and three innocuous lines in order to demonstrate the generalizability of effects across different exemplars of each line type. A preliminary line type X line version MANOVA therefore tested the line version effects on the three dependent

656

The Journal of Social Psychology

measures (willingness to converse, to consider the man for a long-term relationship, and to consider the man for a short-term relationship) for each of the types of lines. The omnibus effect of line version was non-signicant, Pillais F(18, 120) = 1.74, p > .05, as were all of the univariate effects. This indicates that the different exemplars of each line led to consistent results. Therefore, in the main analyses, we averaged across the three versions for each of the types of lines. Main Analyses The three dependent measures were each analyzed with a 3 (Line Type: ippant vs. direct vs. innocuous) X 3 (Attractiveness Level: Attractive vs. Unattractive vs. Control) mixed ANOVA, with Line Type as the repeated measure. The assumption of sphericity was satised in each analysis. Bonferroni post-hoc tests ( = .05) were used to probe all signicant effects. Table 1 provides the ANOVA results and condition means for each dependent measure; means for all signicant main effects are reported below. Conversation and long-term relationship effects. Signicant main effects of line type supported our hypotheses concerning participants willingness to converse with the male stranger and willingness to consider him for a long-term relationship. As expected, participants were less willing to converse with the male target if he used a ippant line (M = 2.71, SD = 1.52) than if he used a direct (M = 4.01, SD = 1.56) or innocuous line (M = 3.69, SD = 1.54). They were also, as expected, less willing to consider the man for a long-term relationship if he used a ippant line (M = 2.13, SD = 1.49) than if he used a direct (M = 3.57, SD = 1.77) or innocuous line (M = 2.99, SD = 1.66). For both dependent measures, non-signicant line X attractiveness interaction effects indicate that these patterns were shown in all three of the attractiveness conditions. However, the attractiveness manipulation did produce signicant main effects on both dependent measures. Participants were more willing to converse with the target if he was attractive (M = 3.88, SD = 1.69) than if he was unattractive (M = 3.16, SD = 1.37), with neither group differing from the control group where his appearance was unstated (M = 3.38, SD = 1.49). They were also marginally more willing to consider him for a long-term relationship if he was attractive (M = 3.36, SD = 1.80) than if he was unattractive (M = 2.47, SD = 1.38), with neither group differing from the control group (M = 2.99, SD = 1.64). Short-term relationship effects. The results also supported our hypothesis concerning participants receptiveness to the man for a short-term relationship. As expected, participants receptiveness hinged on his attractiveness, not the type of line he used. They were less interested in a short-term relationship with the male if he was unattractive (M = 2.64, SD = 1.89) than if he was attractive (M = 3.70,

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Senko & Fyffe

657

TABLE 1. Means (SD) and ANOVA Results for Willingness to Consider the Male for Conversation, a Long-Term Relationship, and a Short-Term Relationship Flippant line Innocuous line

Attractiveness condition

Direct line

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Willingness to Carry On a Conversation Attractive Line-User 3.09 (1.62) 4.39 (1.78) 4.17 (1.69) Unattractive Line-User 2.48 (1.28) 3.78 (1.35) 3.22 (1.45) No Description (Control) 2.58 (1.61) 3.88 (1.51) 3.67 (1.37) F Line Type (2, 134) = 14.14, p < .01, 2 = .17 F Attractiveness (2, 67) = 3.88, p < .05, 2 = .10 F Line X Att (4, 134) = 0.143, p > .05, 2 = .01 Willingness to Consider a Long-Term Relationship Attractive Line-User 2.52 (1.84) 4.00 (1.91) 3.26 (1.66) Unattractive Line-User 1.75 (1.07) 3.17 (1.63) 2.50 (1.45) No Description (Control) 2.08 (1.41) 3.63 (1.72) 3.25 (1.78) F Line Type (2, 136) = 18.41, p < .001, 2 = .21 F Attractiveness (2, 68) = 3.12, p = .05, 2 = .08 F Line X Att (4, 136) = 0.19, p > .05, 2 = .01 Willingness to Consider a Short-Term Relationship Attractive Line-User 3.35 (2.15) 3.86 (1.84) 3.61 (1.69) Unattractive Line-User 2.33 (1.49) 2.85 (0.99) 2.46 (1.02) No Description (Control) 3.50 (2.28) 3.88 (1.48) 3.71 (1.68) F Line Type (2, 136) = 2.60, p > .05, 2 = .04 F Attractiveness (2, 68) = 6.38, p < .01, 2 = .16 F Line X Att (4, 136) = 0.24, p > .05, 2 = .01
Note. N = 70. All measures range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).

SD = 1.17) or if his attractiveness was unknown (M = 3.70, SD = 1.81). The type of line he used did not inuence their judgments in any way. Mediation Analyses We expected that the targets apparent trustworthiness and/or intelligence would mediate the effect of line type on participants willingness to converse with him or to engage in a long-term relationship with him. Therefore, we next analyzed the effects of line type and attractiveness on these two traits as well as his apparent sociability and sense of humor. Table 2 provides the condition means and mixed ANOVA results for each trait. Bonferroni post-hoc tests ( = .05) were used to probe all effects. The attractiveness main effect and the line X

658

The Journal of Social Psychology

TABLE 2. Means (SD) and ANOVA Results for Ratings of the Line-Users Trustworthiness, Intelligence, Sociability, and Sense of Humor Flippant line Innocuous line

Attractiveness condition Line-Users Trustworthiness Attractive Line-User Unattractive Line-User No Description (Control)

Direct line

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

2.94 (1.39) 3.98 (1.48) 3.35 (1.06) 2.59 (0.89) 4.12 (0.93) 3.54 (0.92) 2.75 (1.20) 4.21 (1.13) 3.80 (0.79) F Line Type (2, 136) = 33.60, p < .001, 2 = .33 F Attractiveness (2, 68) = 0.37, p > .05, 2 = .01 F Line X Att (4, 136) = 0.81, p > .05, 2 = .02 2.98 (1.56) 4.02 (1.58) 3.74 (1.17) 2.83 (1.12) 4.21 (1.08) 3.79 (1.08) 2.94 (1.69) 4.13 (1.01) 3.85 (1.05) F Line Type (2, 136) = 19.62, p < .001, 2 = .22 F Attractiveness (2, 68) = 0.03, p > .05, 2 = .00 F Line X Att (4, 136) = 0.13, p > .05, 2 = .01 5.01 (1.37) 4.99 (1.40) 4.75 (1.04) 4.94 (0.87) 4.73 (1.21) 4.06 (1.03) 5.64 (1.51) 4.88 (1.29) 4.40 (0.99) F Line Type (2, 136) = 6.46, p < .01, 2 = .09 F Attractiveness (2, 68) = 0.94, p > .05, 2 = .03 F Line X Att (4, 136) = 0.62, p > .05, 2 = .02 4.20 (1.69) 3.59 (1.32) 3.70 (1.38) 4.21 (1.62) 3.52 (1.65) 3.85 (1.10) 4.17 (2.05) 3.58 (1.43) 3.11 (1.21) F Line Type (2, 136) = 8.57, p < .001, 2 = .13 F Attractiveness (2, 68) = 0.67, p > .05, 2 = .02 F Line X Att (4, 136) = 0.69, p > .05, 2 = .02

Line-Users Intelligence Attractive Line-User Unattractive Line-User No Description (Control)

Line-Users Sociability Attractive Line-User Unattractive Line-User No Description (Control)

Line-Users Sense of Humor Attractive Line-User Unattractive Line-User No Description (Control)

Note. N = 70. All measures range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).

attractiveness interaction were both non-signicant in each analysis, thus showing that attractiveness had no effect on judgments of the mans traits. However, the type of pick-up line did affect participants perceptions of the degree to which the ctional man had each trait. As hypothesized, participants judged the ctional man less trustworthy if he used a ippant line (M = 2.76, SD = 1.17) than if he used a direct (M = 4.66, SD = 1.19) or innocuous line (M = 4.11, SD = 0.94). They also rated him less intelligent if he used a ippant line (M = 2.92, SD = 1.47) than if he used a direct (M = 4.12, SD = 1.24) or innocuous line (M = 3.80, SD = 1.07). These results

Senko & Fyffe

659

mirrored the effects on willingness to converse and consider a long-term relationship with the male, making each trait a viable mediator of those effects. Line type also affected participants views of the mans sociability, but in a manner different from their views of his trustworthiness and intelligence. Participants judged the man less sociable if he used an innocuous line (M = 4.39, SD = 1.03) than if he used a ippant line (M = 5.00, SD = 1.27) or direct line (M = 4.86, SD = 1.29). They also considered him funnier if he used a ippant line (M = 4.19, SD = 1.78) than if he used a direct (M = 3.56, SD = 1.29) or innocuous line (M = 3.21, SD = 1.28). These effects do not match the effects on our dependent measures, thus ruling each out as viable mediators of those effects. We next tested the third element required for mediation: Do the potential mediators (trustworthiness and intelligence) predict the dependent variables (conversation and long-term relationship consideration) and reduce the effect of the independent variable (line type)? Because our line type manipulation is withinsubjects, we followed the guidelines of Judd, Kenny, and McClelland (2001) for testing mediation in within-subjects and mixed designs. Their approach requires creating two contrast codes to capture comparisons between the three line type conditions. The rst contrast, Flippant-Others, is the main one of interest. It compared the ippant line (2) with the direct (+1) and innocuous (+1) lines. The second contrast, Direct-Innocuous, compared the direct (+1) line with the innocuous line. These contrast codes must be created for the dependent measure(s) and the proposed mediator(s) alike. Finally, for each mediator, values in each condition are summed into a total score (i.e., TrustworthinessFlippant+dDirect+Innocuous and IntelligenceFlippant+Direct+Innocuous ). Mediation is revealed in regression analyses when the focal contrast for the mediator (i.e., TrustworthinessFlippant-Others or IntelligenceFlippant-Others ) signicantly predicts the same contrast for the dependent measure (i.e., ConversationFlippant-Others or Long-Term RelationshipFlippant-Others ), with the regression constant and sum scores for these mediators all being non-signicant. Regression analyses of the willingness to converse dependent measure revealed mediation. The Flippant-Other contrasts for trustworthiness and intelligence each signicantly predicted the same contrast for willingness to converse with the male target, F(1, 63) = 20.13, p < .001, = .49, and F(1, 63) = 13.42, p < .01, = .43, respectively, while the Direct-Innocuous contrast codes for each mediator, the sum scores for each mediator, and the regression constant were all non-signicant. The identical pattern was shown in regression analyses of the long-term relationship dependent measure. Once again, the Flippant-Others contrasts for trustworthiness and intelligence both signicantly predicted the same contrast for the dependent measure, F(1, 63) = 27.58, p < .001, = .55, and F(1, 63) = 5.91, p < .05, = .39, respectively, while the regression constant and other terms were non-signicant. Thus, it appears that participants were less willing to converse with the ippant line-user and were less willing to consider him for a long-term relationship, because his ippant line made him appear relatively untrustworthy and unintellingent.

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

660

The Journal of Social Psychology

Discussion Previous studies have shown that women are less willing to converse with men who use ippant lines than those who use direct or innocuous lines (Cunningham, 1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990; Kleinke et al., 1986). The current study did as well. It also extends the prior work by testing hypotheses derived from the evolutionary-based strategic pluralism theory of mate selection (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Consider rst the womens responses to the man when contemplating a long-term relationship. In this context, just like when deciding whether to converse with the man, they were much less receptive if he used a ippant pick-up line instead of a direct or innocuous line. The trait analyses help explain this nding. In accordance with previous work by Cunningham (1989) and Klienke and Dean (1990), the male was judged more sociable, more condent, and funnier when using the ippant line than when using the other lines, but also less trustworthy and less intelligent.3 Women often desire each of these traits in a long-term mate (e.g., Kenrick et al., 1990), but as Li and colleagues have shown, when forced to choose, women rate the latter qualities more essential than the former ones in a long-term mate (Cottrell et al., 2007; Li et al., 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006). This is evident in our mediation analyses as well: Participants disinterest in the ippant line-user as a long-term mate traced directly to their belief that he was untrustworthy and unintelligent. Thus, consistent with the good dad hypothesis, when it comes to long-term mate selection, it appears that trustworthiness and intelligence were necessities, sociability and humor merely luxuries. A different pattern of ndings emerged when women were asked to consider a short-term relationship. In this context, in accord with the good genes hypothesis, womens receptiveness to the man hinged on his attractiveness, not his choice of pick-up lines or the traits conveyed by these lines. Regardless of what line he used, participants were much less receptive to him if he was unattractive than if he was attractive or left un-described.

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Alternative Interpretations and Limitations The principle ndings strongly support the good dad model of womens mate selection for long-term relationships and the good genes model of mate selection for short-term relationships. The attractiveness ndings warrant closer inspection, however. Women were more willing to consider a conversation, a long-term relationship, or a short-term relationship with the man if he was attractive instead of unattractive. This effects consistency across all three relationship contexts raises the possibility that the beautiful is good halo effect guided participants judgments of the target male (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). That is, perhaps

Senko & Fyffe

661

participants assumed the physically attractive man also had a more attractive personality than the physically unattractive man. If true, then their preference for the attractive man as a short-term partner might actually have nothing to do with his genetic quality. Fortunately, the trait analyses allow a direct test of this alternative explanation of our ndings. If the beautiful is good stereotype were responsible for the effects, then there should have been similar attractiveness main effects on beliefs about the mans trustworthiness, intelligence, sociability, and humor. Those effects were all non-signicant, however, thus refuting this alternative to the good genes hypothesis. Why then did attractiveness exert a strong effect across all three contexts? Perhaps this pattern reects how attractiveness is highly valued in the ideal mate (Gangestad et al., 2007; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Regan, 1998). Had participants been forced to choose between attractiveness and trustworthiness (as indicated by his choice of lines), we suspect that they would have favored trustworthiness in the long-term relationship context and attractiveness in the short-term mating context, as has been found in other studies using the forced-choice procedure (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2004; Scheib, 2001). Several possible methodological limitations are worth considering as well. One is the studys ecological validity. Our study relied on hypothetical scenarios instead of real interactions with the stranger. Would the results have been similar if women had actually been approached by the male stranger using one of these lines? Fortunately, Cunningham (1989) found similar ndings using that exact approach. In his study, a male experimenter approached young female patrons at a bar. As in our study and others using the vignette method (Kleinke & Dean, 1990; Kleinke et al., 1986), his participants were more receptive to the man if he used a direct or innocuous line instead of a ippant line: they smiled more, made more eye contact, and responded with greater friendliness. Although Cunninghams and Kleinkes studies did not examine short-term and long-term mating contexts, their convergence with our willingness to converse ndings provides condence in the vignette methodology used in this study. This of course is not to suggest that the mans pick-up line renders other cues to his character and mate quality irrelevant. His vocal quality, peer groups, fashion, and sundry other characteristics may also inuence impression-formation in real-world settings. Rather, the key value of the converging set of ndings across different methodologies is their demonstration that opening verbal gambits do provide useful clues during the initial mate selection process. Whether these clues are valid is another matter. Person perception research shows that women can infer strangers personalities and intelligence with noteworthy accuracy (Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007). Insofar as word choices indicate features of ones personality (Fast & Funder, 2008), it is plausible that women would make reasonably accurate character inferences based on mens pick-up lines. In our view, however, the accuracy of these judgments is less important than the impact these judgments have on womens consideration of long-term relationship

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

662

The Journal of Social Psychology

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

partners. In particular, from an evolutionary perspective, women should favor a risk-avoidance strategy during long-term mate selection because of their high personal investment in the creation and bearing of potential offspring (Haselton & Buss, 2000). Thus, it may have been evolutionarily benecial for women to develop a hyper-vigilance for unsavory character traits and sexual intentions conveyed, for example, through his use of ippant pick-up lines even if those initial perceptions are inaccurate. Another possible limitation is that the current ndings are unique to the particular lines we chose. We consider this possibility remote for several reasons. First, Kleinke et al. (1986) found that over 100 commonly used lines were easily classied with factor analysis into the three basic types, thus testifying to the typologys generalizability. Furthermore, across all of those lines, their female participants clearly favored the direct and innocuous ones over the ippant lines. Second, we used three versions of the ippant lines, direct lines, and innocuous lines, and still found the same basic effect regardless of the versions. Third, our ndings for willingness to converse replicate the past three studies (Cunningham, 1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990; Kleinke et al., 1986), despite all of these studies using different ippant, direct, and innocuous lines. There is good reason, therefore, to expect that the current ndings would generalize to other examples of these three line types. This of course is not to suggest that all ippant lines are necessarily ineffective; one could presumably be made effective if crafted in a way that conveys trustworthiness. Nor is it to say that a direct line would always be effective; one could be rendered ineffective if crafted in a way that conveys rudeness or stupidity. Rather, the point is that these lines do nevertheless tend to offer predictable and useful cues to the line-users character, and that this in turn allows quick judgments of his desirability as a mate for different types of relationships (see also Bale et al., 2006). Theoretical Implications and Research Directions This study offers several theoretical contributions and research directions to consider. First, much research during the past 1520 years has demonstrated how mate selection strategies inuence judgments of anothers appearance and other qualities. Strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000) proposes that these judgments depend on whether one is assessing potential mates for a long-term relationship or instead for a short-term relationship. Little work has tested this theory within the context of immediate assessments of potential mates based on minimal information about the mans character. The current studies provide such a test and show that the theorys principles may even affect womens willingness to even converse with a man who shows interest in them. The current ndings have implications for recent theorizing about the role of perceived intelligence in mate selection. Theorists have long posited that intelligence is prized by women seeking a long-term relationship because it signals

Senko & Fyffe

663

the mans likely capability to acquire needed status-resources to provide for the family (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). More recently, theorists have proposed that intelligence should also be valued in short-term mates to the extent that it is a heritable tness trait (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Gangestad et al., 2007; Haselton & Miller, 2006). Thus, in theory, intelligence might be appealing to women no matter what type of relationship is being sought. However, the research to date has more strongly demonstrated the importance of perceived intelligence for long-term mate selection than for short-term mate selection, which appears at this point to be inuenced most by attractiveness and masculinity displays that signal heritable tness (Buss & Gangestad et al., 2007; Prokosch, Coss, Scheib, & Blozis, 2009). Our ndings are consistent with this emerging pattern: the ippant line, despite conveying low intelligence, did not inuence womens judgments of the mans desirability as a short-term relationship partner. Only his attractiveness mattered in this relationship context. Similarly, the ndings speak to recent theorizing about humors role in mate selection. People often list humor as highly desirable in a long-term mate (e.g., Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Kenrick et al., 1990; Sprecher & Regan, 2002), and this is likely why men so often rely on ippant lines to meet women. According to Miller and colleagues mating mind hypothesis, humor is attractive because it signals creative intelligence, a heritable trait that should be valuable both in longterm and short-term mating (Haselton & Miller, 2006; Geher & Miller, 2008; Kaufman et al., 2008). Our ndings seem in some respects to oppose their hypothesis: Although women rated the ippant line-user funnier and more creative than the direct and innocuous line-users, they also judged him less intelligent and less desirable. Other studies have shown an inverse relationship between perceived humor and perceived intelligence as well (Bale et al., 2007; Bressler & Balshine, 2006). However, in those studies and ours, the humor took the form of canned one-liners. Most likely, humor must take the form of spontaneous wit, consistently demonstrated, if it is to provide an honest signal of heritable intelligence. That form of humor would most likely have much stronger appeal to women than the ippant pick-up lines and other canned jokes that men often use to impress women. Future research on the mating mind hypothesis is needed to directly compare the effects of canned versus spontaneous humor. Of course, it should be noted that mating strategies principles were simply used as a guiding framework; they were not all tested fully. For example, like most studies using a good genes framework to assess mate preferences in a shortterm relationship context (e.g., Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Scheib, 2001), the current study could not directly assess whether the preference for an attractive partner in this context traces to an evolved link between attractiveness and health. Other studies have shown that people with attractive faces (i.e., symmetrical faces) are perceived to be healthy (Rhodes, Zebrowitz, Clark, & Kalick, 2001). However, as noted by Weeden and Sabini (2005), the evidence linking attractiveness to actual health is mixed, with most studies showing modest or null relationships (e.g., Shackelford & Larsen, 1997, 1999; Soler, et al., 2003).

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

664

The Journal of Social Psychology

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Perhaps, then, there is another reason, unrelated to phenotypic quality, for why women weigh attractiveness so heavily when considering mates for short-term relationships. This remains an important issue for future research on the good genes hypothesis. Additionally, it could be fruitful for future research to examine those characteristics of the line-recipient that might moderate the effects shown here. One candidate is the womens sociosexuality (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992). Women with an unrestricted sociosexuality orientation tend to be more open to short-term relationships than women with a restricted orientation. Unrestricted women might respond more favorably than the restricted women to the irtatious ippant line, perhaps especially when considering a short-term relationship. A second possible moderator concerns the womans reproductive cycle. Insofar as women are more receptive to short-term mating and more keen on masculine displays during the most fertile phase of their cycle (Gangestad et al., 2007; Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, Garver-Apgar, & Christensen, 2004; Penton-Voak et al., 1999), perhaps they also would be more receptive to the bold and sexually charged ippant line at that point. Additional studies could test these and other moderators to help specify when and why some opening gambits are more successful than others.
NOTES
1. It is conceivable that some participants would dene attractiveness in terms of personality instead of physical features. Yet this possibility seems remote because the scenario concerns a stranger at a campus event, and it would be disproved if the attractiveness manipulation has null effects on the trait attributions. 2. Answering the long-term relationship question could create pressure to remain consistent when answering the other two questions. For example, if participants reported relatively high willingness to consider a long-term relationship, then they might feel compelled to report equally high willingness to consider a conversation. This consistency pressure seemed less likely if the conversation item came rst, as there is a large psychological gap between conversing and entering a relationship. We therefore presented the three questions to all participants in this order: conversation, short-term relationship, long-term relationship. 3. Our mediation results dovetail with Klienke and Deans (1990) nding that ippant lines conveyed irresponsibility, selshness, and promiscuity, all of which are cues to low trustworthiness (Fletcher et al., 1999). Both ours and theirs, however, depart somewhat from Cunninghams (1989) results, which showed that sociability not trustworthiness, was, along with intelligence, the principle trait that women consider when deciding whether to converse with the male line-user. This difference might trace to the choice of different ippant lines used in the studies: ours (Shall we talk? Or continue irting from a distance?) and Kleinke and Deans (e.g., Im easy, are you?) are more sexual than Cunninghams (e.g., Bet I can outdrink you). Perhaps it is the irtatious and sexual undertone, so common in ippant pick-up lines, that triggers apprehension about the mans intentions and trustworthiness, thus elevating its prominence in our ndings.

AUTHOR NOTES Corwin Senko is afliated with Department of Psychology at the State University of New YorkNew Paltz. Viviana Fyffe is afliated with Department of Psychology at the State University of New YorkNew Paltz.

Senko & Fyffe

665

REFERENCES Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655664. Bressler & Balshine (2006). The inuence of humor on desirability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 121130. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204232. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134146. Carney, D. R., Colvin, R., & Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of rst impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 10541072. Cooper, ODonnell, Caryl, Morrison, & Bale, 2007. Chat-up lines as male displays: Effects of content, sex, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 10751085. Cotrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208231. Cunningham, M. R. (1989). Reactions to heterosexual gambits: Female selectivity and male responsiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 2741. Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2008). Prelude to a kiss: Nonverbal irting, opening gambits, and other communication dynamics in the initiation of romantic relationships. In S. Sprecher, A. Wentzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 97120). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Dion, K.K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285290. Fast, L. A., & Funder, D. C. (2008). Personality as manifest in word use: Correlations with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 334346. Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933940 Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 7289. Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., OLoughlin, C., Friesen, M., Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659672. Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M.G. (2007).Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the tness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 11671183. Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C.E., Simpson, J.A., & Cousins, A.J. (2007). Changes in womens mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151163. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573644. Gangestad, S.W., Simpson, J.A., Cousins, A.J., Garver-Apgar, C.E., & Christensen, P.N. (2004). Womens preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15, 203207. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of uctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 6988. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in womens preference for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 262, 727733.

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

666

The Journal of Social Psychology

Geher, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the minds reproductive system. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 393408. Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D.M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 8191. Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S.W. (2005). Conditional expression of womens desires and mens mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 509518. Haselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Womens fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature, 17, 5073. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subjects designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115134. Kaufman, S. B., Kozbelt, A., Bromley, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (2008). The role of creativity and humor in mate selection. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the minds reproductive system (pp. 227262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and stages of human courtship qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97117. Kleinke, C. L. & Dean, G. O. (1990). Evaluation of men and women receiving positive and negative responses with various acquaintance strategies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 369377. Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles, 15, 585599. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947955. Li, N.P., & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for shortterm mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468489. Penton-Voak, I.S., Perrett, D.I., Castles, D., Burt, M., Koyabashi, T., & Murray, L.K. (1999). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature, 399, 741742. Prokosch, M.D., Coss, R.G., Scheib, J.E. & Blozis, S.A. (2009). Intelligence and mate choice: Intelligent men are always appealing. Evolution & Human Behavior, 30, 1120. Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you cant get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 12941303. Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark A., & Kalick, S. M. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 3146. Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specic mate choice criteria: Trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 84, 371389. 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, 747768. Shackelford, T.K., & Larsen, R.J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 56466.

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Senko & Fyffe

667

Downloaded by [121.54.40.36] at 19:40 26 February 2012

Shackelford, T.K., & Larsen, R.J. (1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 7176. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 3151. Soler, C., Nez, M., Gutirrez, R., Nez, J., Medina, P., Sancho, M., et al. (2003). Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 199207. Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463481. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635653.

Received January 10, 2009 Accepted May 11, 2009