ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Assortative mate preferences for height across short-term and long-term relationship contexts in a cross-cultural sample.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of joint effect of parental anthropometrics on fetal growth trajectories: A national multicenter cohort study.Chinese medical journal · 2026Article
- Multifactorial drivers of spatial variation in human body form across modern China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Associations Between Reproductive Disorders and Specific Physical, Mental, Personality, and Social Characteristics: A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Predictors and memory consequences of dating decisions in a dating app-analogue study.Evolutionary human sciences · 2024Article
- Both reduced ovarian reserve and severe semen alterations are overrepresented in couples seeking assisted reproductive technology treatment for the first time: a cross-sectional study.Reproductive health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Height preferences reflecting positive assortative mating for height-wherein an individual's own height positively predicts the preferred height of their mate-have been observed in several distinct human populations and are thought to increase reproductive fitness. However, the extent to which assortative preferences for height differ strategically for short-term versus long-term relationship partners, as they do for numerous other indices of mate quality, remains unclear. We explore this possibility in a large representative sample of over 500 men and women aged 15-77 from Canada, Cuba, Norway and the United States. Participants' own heights were measured, and they indicated their height preferences for a long-term and short-term mate using graphic stimuli containing metric indices. Replicating the "male-taller norm," participants on average preferred taller-than-average male mates, and shorter-than-average female mates. Positive assortative preferences for height were observed across sexes and samples, however the strength of these height preferences varied with relationship context for men, and not for women. Taller men preferred relatively shorter women for short-term relationships than for long-term relationships, indicating stronger assortative preferences for height in a long-term context. These results provide preliminary evidence that, in addition to mate preferences for other physical traits related to mate quality such as masculinity in the body, face, and voice, assortative preferences for height do vary as a function of expected relationship length, but this was surprisingly only observed in preferences for female height.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.