Study Analysis

Article

Are Women’s Mate Preferences for Altruism Also Influenced by Physical Attractiveness?

Daniel Farrelly1, Paul Clemson2, and Melissa Guthrie2

Abstract Altruism plays a role in mate choice, particularly in women’s preferences and in long-term (LT) relationships. The current study analyzed how these preferences interacted with another important mate choice variable, physical attractiveness. Here, female participants were presented with photographs of men of varying levels of physical attractiveness, alongside descriptions of them behaving either altruistically or not in different scenarios. The results showed women preferred altruistic men, particularly in LT relationships and that this interacted with physical attractiveness such that being both attractive and altruistic made a man more desirable than just the sum of the two desirable parts. Also, being altruistic made low attractive men more desirable but only for LT relationships. Finally, men who were just altruistic were rated more desirable than men who were just attractive, especially for LT relationships. Overall, these findings are discussed in terms of the role of altruism in mate choice, particularly in LT rela- tionships and directions of future research.

Keywords altruism, attractiveness, cooperation, mate choice, relationship length, sexual selection

Date received: June 26, 2015; Accepted: November 9, 2015

Introduction

The ‘‘puzzle’’ of altruism, as Darwin (1871) described it, has

received attention recently to explore whether sexual selection

can play a role in solving it. For example, a number of studies

have shown that individuals behave more altruistically with or

in the presence of potential mates (Farrelly, Lazarus, &

Roberts, 2007; Iredale, Van Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008; Tognetti,

Berticat, Raymond, & Faurie, 2012; Van Vugt & Iredale,

2013). Similarly, other research has provided evidence that

individuals, in particular women, show a preference for part-

ners who are altruistic (Barclay, 2010; Farrelly, 2011, 2013;

Moore et al., 2013; Oda, Shibata, Kiyonari, Takeda, &

Matsumoto-Oda, 2013; Phillips, Barnard, Ferguson, & Reader,

2008; Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015).

Furthermore, previous research has sought to identify what

qualities altruism may be signaling that makes it desirable in a

potential mate. Both Farrelly (2011) and Oda, Okuda, Takeda,

and Hiraishi (2014) explored whether altruism can better signal

the genetic quality of the altruist, due to the ‘‘good genes’’ that

are perhaps necessary for them to afford the costs of altruistic

behavior (e.g. Miller, 2000) or good phenotypic quality, as the

nature of such behaviors may indicate that the altruist will be a

good partner and parent (e.g., Kokko, 1998; Miller, 2007). This

was achieved by examining how women’s preferences for

altruistic men varied across the menstrual cycle, where signals

of good genetic quality are expected to be more desirable dur-

ing the high fertile stage of the cycle, particularly for short-term

(ST) mating (e.g. Gangestad & Haselton, 2015; Gangestad &

Thornhill, 2008; Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). Both

Farrelly (2011) and Oda et al. (2014) were consistent in finding

that not only were there no effects of menstrual cycle stage on

women’s preferences for altruistic traits in men but also that

there were increased preferences for men in long-term (LT)

1 Institute of Health and Society, University of Worcester, Worcester, United

Kingdom 2 Department of Psychology, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, United

Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Daniel Farrelly, Institute of Health and Society, University of Worcester,

Worcester, United Kingdom.

Email: [email protected]

Evolutionary Psychology January-March 2016: 1–6 ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1474704915623698 evp.sagepub.com

Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

relationships who displayed in altruism in different contexts

(Farrelly, 2011) and toward different recipients (Oda, Okuda,

Takeda, & Hiraishi, 2014). Therefore, both studies conclude

that altruism functions in mate choice as a signal of phenotypic

qualities, rather than predominantly a signal of genetic quality.

Further support for this is the consistent finding in research

of altruism being more desirable in LT partners (Barclay, 2010;

Farrelly, 2013; Moore et al., 2013) as well as altruists being

more likely to enter LT relationships (Stavrova & Ehlebracht,

2015) and assortative mating for altruistic characteristics

among married couples in Senegal (Tognetti et al., 2012).

However, caution needs to be exercised when examining

whether a specific trait is a signal of either genetic or pheno-

typic qualities based on relationship length alone. This is

because this may not be a clear indication of what is being

signaled, as not all preferences in either ST or LT partners are

for traits that signal genetic or phenotypic quality, respectively

(Buss & Shackelford, 2008). Similarly, any variation for a

complex psychological trait such as altruism will be the prod-

uct of both genetic and phenotypic/environmental causes.

Overall, though, such findings highlight at least in what context

women find altruistic men more desirable (which is LT rela-

tionships) and as a result contributes to our understanding of

altruism’s role in human mate choice.

This role can be further understood by examining what hap-

pens to the desirability of men when signals of altruistic beha-

vior vary concurrently with other desired traits in mate choice.

Knowledge of this would help us to further understand the

trade-offs and signals associated with sexually selected altru-

ism. This study aimed to answer this, by building on the above

findings with an examination of how women’s preferences for

altruistic men in both ST and LT relationships were affected by

the latter’s physical attractiveness. There exists a great deal of

evidence that physical attractiveness can act as a reliable signal

of genetic quality (e.g., Rhodes, 2006) and also that women

have greater preferences for physically attractive men in ST

relationships (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick,

2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Regan, 1998), particularly at the

high fertile stage of the menstrual cycle (Gangestad, Garver-

Apgar, Simpson, & Cousins, 2007; Gangestad, Thornhill, &

Garver-Apgar, 2010). Therefore, the current study will further

our understanding of how physical attractiveness interacts in

women’s mate preferences with altruism, which recent evi-

dence (Farrelly, 2011; Oda et al., 2014) suggests is a signal

of good partner/parenting qualities. As such, it will follow from

previous research, which has shown that in forced choice sce-

narios females prefer mates who display ‘‘warmth/trustworthi-

ness’’ (which will have parallels to altruistic behavior) than

those who are physically attractive, particularly for longer,

committed relationships (Fletcher, Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen,

& Overall, 2004).

Overall, the current study examined how the physical attrac-

tiveness and the level of altruism of men affected their desir-

ability to women for both ST and LT relationships. It also

builds on the previous research of Barclay (2010) and Farrelly

(2011) by using short individual profiles presented to

participants and asking them to rate the desirability of each but

with the addition of photographs of these individuals portray-

ing them as either high or low in attractiveness. Based on these

previous findings and theory outlined earlier, it was predicted

that altruists will be rated more desirable than nonaltruists

(Hypothesis 1) and that this preference will be greater for LT

than ST relationships (Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, as the intro-

duction of physical attractiveness as an additional variable in

this study was novel, there is the exploratory hypothesis that

this may further affect the findings relating to these first two

hypotheses. Finally, based on the previous findings of Fletcher,

Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen, and Overall (2004), it was pre-

dicted that women will show preferences for altruism over

physical attractiveness (Hypothesis 3) and that this preference

will be greater for LT relationships (Hypothesis 4).

Material and Method

Participants

A total of 202 heterosexual women (age M ¼ 21.93, SD ¼ 6.2)

took part in the experiment. Participants completed the study

online using www.surveymonkey.com and were recruited via

opportunistic sampling or received course credit for complet-

ing the study. This research was approved by the university

ethics committee.

Materials

A series of male facial 2-D photographs were sourced from two

different databases, pics.stir.ac.uk and the Radboud Faces

Database (Langner et al., 2010), and were then independently

assessed by three judges (the three authors) who selected the 12

highest and 12 lowest physically attractive men to be included

in the study. Further validation of these selections were from

the overall attractiveness ratings in the main study, whereby the

high attractive men were rated overall as more attractive than

the low attractive men, F(1, 201) ¼ 416.6, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .68.

Pairs of photographs were presented alongside rubrics of

particular scenarios, with the person in each photo given a

neutral label (e.g., ‘‘Person A’’). These scenarios described

conditions where individuals could behave altruistically and

are based on similar scenarios used elsewhere (Farthing,

2005; Phillips et al., 2008). Following this, the rubric described

how the two men behaved in response to this scenario, which

was either high in altruism or low in altruism. Apart from these,

participants also viewed pairs of photographs alongside neutral

scenarios, with both individuals described as behaving neither

altruistically nor nonaltruistically (e.g. ‘‘Person O and Person P

both go out clothes shopping, Person O decides to buy a green

jumper and Person P buys a pair of jeans’’). Examples of the

different scenarios are provided in Table 1.

Directly underneath this were two questions that related to

each of the individuals. These asked how attractive the person

was for two types of relationship, LT or ST. Definitions of

these two relationship types (ST: a person with whom you

2 Evolutionary Psychology

would desire a brief affair or a one night stand. LT: a person

with whom you desire a committed LT romantic relationship)

were provided based on previous research (Farrelly, 2011).

Both questions required a response on a 5-point Likert-type

scale from very unattractive to very attractive. All research

materials relevant to this article can be accessed by contacting

the corresponding author.

Procedure

Participants first read an information sheet that described the

study as investigating female perceptions of attractiveness in

different scenarios and then provide informed consent. After

giving details of their age, participants were told that they

would be required to rate how attractive they found a number

of different individuals for both ST and LT relationship and

were provided with the descriptions of both relationship

types. Participants then went on to view the different men

with the accompanying scenarios and behaviors as outlined

earlier.

In total, there were 12 scenarios that participants viewed, 8

of which were altruism conditions and 4 of which were neutral.

The order in which participants saw these was randomly deter-

mined, and there were two orders that participants were ran-

domly allocated to at the start of the study. As mentioned

earlier, each scenario was presented with photographs of two

individuals with details of their behavior in relation to the

scenario. In each scenario, participants saw a high attractive

and a low attractive individual paired together. Across these

eight pairings in the ‘‘altruism’’ conditions, high attractive indi-

viduals were presented 4 times as being low in altruism and

also 4 times as being high in altruism (the same was also true

for the low attractive individuals).

After viewing all 12 scenarios and completing the attrac-

tiveness ratings for each individual, participants were fully

debriefed as to the true aims of the study and thanked for their

participation.

Results

To test the hypotheses presented in the introduction, a repeated

measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, with

attractiveness of target individual (high vs. low), level of altru-

ism (high vs. low), and relationship length (ST vs. LT) as

within-subjects variables. Subsequently are presented the main

results and interactions that are relevant to the hypotheses,

including, where necessary, pairwise comparisons (paired

t-tests).

Hypothesis 1: Altruistic men will be more desirable than

nonaltruistic men.

Individuals who displayed high levels of altruism were rated

significantly more desirable overall than those displaying low

levels of altruism, F(1, 201) ¼ 443.05, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .69, see

Figure 1.

In terms of whether there was a further influence of the

physical attractiveness on the desirability of altruism, a signif-

icant interaction was found between target attractiveness and

level of altruism, F(1, 201) ¼ 178.28, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .47, see

Figure 1. To further understand the nature of this interaction,

the proportional change in the desirability ratings from low

attractive to high attractive men was calculated for both low

and high altruism levels. A paired t-test then revealed that

the proportional increase in ratings from low to high attrac-

tive men was greater when they also displayed high altruism

than when they also displayed low altruism, t(201) ¼ 8.05,

p < .001, r < .27.

Figure 1. Graph of mean desirability ratings (+standard error [SE]) of men by level of attractiveness, level of altruism, and length of relationship.

Table 1. Examples of Scenarios and Target Person Behaviors.

Scenario Behavior of High Altruist

Behavior of Low Altruist

Person S and Person T are both at a picnic beside a river that has a fast current and they see a child being swept down the river, gasping for breath. A woman cries ‘‘Help! Save my child!’’

Person T hears the mother’s cries and decides to jump in the raging river to try to save the child

Person S sees the speed of the current and chooses not to try to help the child

Two people are walking through a busy town and notice a homeless person sitting near a café

Person E decides to go into the café to buy a sandwich and a cup of tea to give to the homeless person outside

Person F pretends to use his mobile phone and walks straight past the homeless person

Farrelly et al. 3

Hypothesis 2: Altruistic men will be more desirable for LT

than ST relationships.

There was a significant interaction between level of altruism

and relationship length, F(1, 201)¼ 167.29, p < .001, Z2¼ .45,

see Figure 1. Further, pairwise comparisons revealed that high

altruists were rated more desirable as LT than ST partners,

t(201) ¼ 5.8, p < .001, r ¼ .21, whereas low altruists

were actually rated more attractive as ST than LT partners,

t(201) ¼ 12.9, p < .001, r ¼ .42.

In terms of whether there was a further influence of the

physical attractiveness on the desirability of altruism in LT

partners, a significant three-way interaction between attractive-

ness of target, level of altruism, and relationship length was

found, F(1, 201) ¼ 7.27, p ¼ .008, Z2 ¼ .04, see Figure 1. To

better understand this interaction, proportional changes in rat-

ings from ST to LT relationships were calculated and used as

the dependent variable in a repeated measures ANOVA with

attractiveness of target (high vs. low) and level of altruism

(high vs. low) as within-subjects measures. This revealed a

significant interaction, F(1, 201) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .022, Z2 ¼ .03,

and subsequent pairwise comparisons revealed that the propor-

tional change from ST to LT was significantly greater for low

attractive men than high attractive men only when they dis-

played high altruism, t(201) ¼ 2.3, p ¼ .022, r ¼ .09, whereas

there was no such significant difference when they displayed

low altruism, t(201) ¼ �.69, p ¼ .49, r ¼ .05, see Figure 2. In

other words, men low in physical attractiveness were preferred

significantly more as LT partners by women only when they

were also altruistic.

Hypothesis 3: Women will show a preference for altruistic

men over physically attractive men.

To test this hypothesis, women’s ratings of the desirability

of men who displayed only high levels of either physical

attractiveness or altruism were compared. As a result, it was

found that the desirability of low attractive men who displayed

high altruism was higher than that of high attractive men who

displayed low altruism, t(201) ¼ 6.37, p < .001, r ¼ .22, see

Figure 3.

Hypothesis 4: Women will show a greater preference for

altruistic men over physically attractive men for LT than ST

relationships.

To test this hypothesis, a similar analysis to that of Hypoth-

esis 3 was conducted with relationship length (ST vs. LT)

included as a further within-subjects measure alongside trait

displayed (high altruism vs. high attractiveness) in a repeated

measures ANOVA. This revealed a significant interaction, F(1,

201) ¼ 135.34, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .4, see Figure 3. Subsequent

pairwise comparisons revealed that women’s ratings for men

displaying altruism but not attractiveness were significantly

higher than for men displaying attractiveness but not altruism

only for LT relationships, t(201)¼ 10.69, p < .001, r¼ .36, and

not for ST relationships, t(201) ¼ 1.55, p ¼ .12, r ¼ .11.

Discussion

As predicted, women found men who behaved altruistically

more desirable than those who did not. This therefore supports

Hypothesis 1 and adds to the body of empirical evidence that

shows altruism has an important role in human mate choice.

Furthermore, women found altruistic men more desirable for

LT relationships, which supports Hypothesis 2 and is in line

with previous findings (e.g., Barclay, 2010; Farrelly, 2011,

2013; Oda et al., 2014). As an interestingly aside to this anal-

ysis, it was also found that nonaltruistic men were more desir-

able for ST relationships, which suggests that rather than

altruism not being important in ST relationships (as previous

Figure 2. Graph of proportional change in desirability from short- term to long-term (+standard error [SE]) of men by level of attrac- tiveness and level of altruism. Figure 3. Graph of desirability ratings (+standard error [SE]) of men

displaying either high altruism or high attractiveness only by different relationship lengths.

4 Evolutionary Psychology

research suggests), in the present study, it is actually undesir-

able. This is a surprising finding, as little is known or

researched about what being un-altruistic means in terms of

mate choice, and is worthy of further investigation. As such,

it may be related to female mate choice for other, less socially

desirable traits that may have a role in male ST mating strate-

gies such as the Dark Triad (e.g., Jonason, Li, Webster, &

Schmitt, 2009).

The preference for altruistic men was also further influenced

by their physical attractiveness, such that the increase in desir-

ability of men as attractiveness increased was significantly

greater when they were also altruistic. This suggests that altru-

ism can have an additive effect to other mate choice qualities

(in this case, physical attractiveness), such that possessing both

qualities has a greater effect on a man’s desirability than just a

combination of their individual desirability. Also, the higher

preference for LT over ST relationships with men low in attrac-

tiveness when they were altruistic suggests that being altruistic

may act as a reliable mating strategy for acquiring LT partners

for such men. Further investigation, such as examining how

men of different attractiveness levels use altruistic acts as LT

courtship displays, would explore this possibility in more

depth.

Furthermore, the finding that high altruistic/low attractive

men were rated more desirable than low altruistic/high attrac-

tive men offers support for Hypothesis 3, and further analysis

that revealed that this was only significant for LT relationships

offers support for Hypothesis 4. This suggests that if a man

possesses only one of these traits, it is altruism that is more

valuable, particularly for LT relationships. This, together with

the above findings, provides further evidence of the importance

of altruism in women’s mate choice preferences, even when it

is presented with other notable mate choice traits (such as

physical attractiveness). Furthermore, by showing that this

effect is even greater for LT relationships, more evidence is

provided for altruism being a highly important characteristic

trait women look for in LT partners.

To properly interpret these findings, it is also important to

consider some limitations in the methods used. Firstly, both

men in some scenarios (i.e., the one who behaved altruistically

and the one that did not) were presented together, such as in the

first example in Table 1 (rescuing a child from a river). As a

result, this may mean that the nonaltruist in these scenarios may

signal other traits as well such as lack of awareness (empathy)

or apathy. Although such traits will most likely relate to or be

part of a low altruistic nature in such individuals, future

research could examine profiles presented alone to avoid any

possible confounding effect of comparing the altruism levels of

two men simultaneously. Another consideration is that by using

a range of different scenarios in this study, possible character-

istics may have been signaled other than just altruism. For

example, the moral consequences of behaving altruistically in

some scenarios were higher than others, for example, compar-

ing attempting to save a child from drowning with buying food

for a homeless person. Another example is that altruistic beha-

vior in these two scenarios will also vary in the degree to which

physical strength/prowess is also signaled, which will be higher

when jumping into a river to save a child than when buying a

sandwich. Overall, though, all scenarios used in this study can

be considered to act as reliable signals of altruism, even if

individual scenarios may be able to signal other traits as well.

This therefore makes the findings in this study from women’s

ratings of altruistic behavior across all scenarios still valid.

Future research however may wish to explore the different

types of altruism signaled in these individual scenarios sepa-

rately in more detail, such as heroism (Farthing, 2005, 2007;

Kelly & Dunbar, 2001) or charitable giving (e.g., Barclay,

2010; Iredale et al., 2008). Such research would need to control

for the extraneous variables that may also be signaled (e.g.,

physical strength across different heroic scenarios) to ensure

that only the value of that type of altruism in mate choice is

reliably being examined.

It will be important for additional research to build on these

findings in certain directions to further aid our understanding.

Firstly, an examination of menstrual cycle effects may shed

some light on the results obtained here. In particular, how they

may affect the potential weightings of altruism and physical

attractiveness in women’s ratings of men’s desirability across

the cycle. Also, future research needs to examine the effects

found here in men’s ratings of the desirability of altruistic

women as well. This is because there is a lack of such research

in this area, as most studies have concentrated on only women’s

ratings. However, when both sexes are investigated, it has led

to similar findings (e.g., Farrelly, 2013; Farrelly et al., 2007;

Moore et al., 2013; Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015), suggesting

that altruism has been shaped by mutual mate choice in humans

(Miller, 2000). It is therefore important to see whether this is

also the case when physical attractiveness is also explored

alongside it. Also of value would be an exploration of the

interaction of the different variables used here in real-world

mate choice settings. Experimentally derived findings on mate

choice decision making such as those outlined here can only

benefit from seeing if the same findings are present when look-

ing at actual relationships and interactions in the real world,

which is a methodology successfully employed elsewhere (e.g.,

Phillips et al., 2008; Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015).

To conclude, these findings make a substantial contribution

to our understanding of the role of altruistic behavior in human

mate choice by including the previously unexplored additional

variables of physical attractiveness. Overall, the results provide

further support for the view that altruism acts as an important

trait in mate choice, particularly for LT relationships. This has

important implications for our understanding of how we under-

stand the expression of altruism and other traits holistically by

casting further light on the rich tapestry that is human mating.

This is also evident in the fact that the current study also sug-

gests that nonaltruism may have a role in mate choice, perhaps

aligning the spectrum of behavior explored here with research

on traits such as the Dark Triad. As such, the current study can

aid our understanding of altruism not only in mate choice but

also in different everyday occurrences of this ubiquitous but

enigmatic trait.

Farrelly et al. 5

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Barclay, P. (2010). Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of

third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of

Psychology, 101, 123–135.

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it

all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and

emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134–146.

Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002).

Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various

involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to

sex. London, England: Murray.

Farrelly, D. (2011). Cooperation as a signal of genetic or phenotypic

quality in female mate choice? Evidence from preferences across

the menstrual cycle. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 406–430.

Farrelly, D. (2013). Altruism as an indicator of good parenting quality

in long-term relationships: Further investigations using the mate

preferences towards altruistic traits scale. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 153, 395–398.

Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists attract.

Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 313–329.

Farthing, G. W. (2005). Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic phys-

ical risk takers as mates and as friends. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 26, 171–185.

Farthing, G. W. (2007). Neither Daredevils nor Wimps: Attitudes

toward physical risk takers as mates. Evolutionary Psychology,

5, 754–777.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, 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, 659–672.

Gangestad, S. W., & Haselton, M. G. (2015). Human estrus: Impli-

cations for relationship science. Current Opinion in Psychology,

1, 45–51.

Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J.

(2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory

cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151–163.

Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Human oestrus. Proceed-

ings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 991–1000.

Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2010).

Fertility in the cycle predicts women’s interest in sexual opportu-

nism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 400–411.

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, 1205–1259.

Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in

humans: Male generosity as a mating. Signal, 6, 386–392.

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The

Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men.

European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.

Kelly, S., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001). Who dares, wins. Human Nature,

12, 89–105.

Kokko, H. (1998). Should advertising parental care be honest? Pro-

ceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265,

1871–1878.

Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Hawk,

S. T., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and valida-

tion of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition and Emotion,

24, 1377–1388.

Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in

preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.

Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual selection shaped

the evolution of human nature. London, England: William

Heinemann.

Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly

Review of Biology, 82, 97–125.

Moore, D., Wigby, S., English, S., Wong, S., Székely, T., & Harrison,

F. (2013). Selflessness is sexy: Reported helping behaviour

increases desirability of men and women as long-term sexual part-

ners. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 13, 182.

Oda, R., Okuda, A., Takeda, M., & Hiraishi, K. (2014). Provision or

good genes? Menstrual cycle shifts in women’s preferences for

short-term and long-term mates’ altruistic behavior. Evolutionary

Psychology, 12, 888–900.

Oda, R., Shibata, A., Kiyonari, T., Takeda, M., & Matsumoto-Oda, A.

(2013). Sexually dimorphic preference for altruism in the opposite

sex according to recipient. British Journal of Psychology, 104,

577–584.

Phillips, T., Barnard, C., Ferguson, E., & Reader, T. (2008). Do

humans prefer altruistic mates? Testing a link between sexual

selection and altruism towards non-relatives. British Journal of

Psychology, 99, 555–572.

Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can’t get what you want? Willing-

ness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of

sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty.

Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.

Stavrova, O., & Ehlebracht, D. (2015). A longitudinal analysis of

romantic relationship formation: The effect of prosocial behavior.

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 521–527.

Tognetti, A., Berticat, C., Raymond, M., & Faurie, C. (2012). Sexual

selection of human cooperative behaviour: An experimental study

in rural Senegal. PloS One, 7, e44403.

Van Vugt, M., & Iredale, W. (2013). Men behaving nicely: Public

goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104,

3–13.

6 Evolutionary Psychology

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 175 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 175 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /ENU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice