Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38920771›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Testing Sexual Strategy Theory in Norway.

Mehmet Mehmetoglu, Ilmari Määttänen, Matthias Mittner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Buttocks or Breasts? Identifying Latent Subgroups in Male Preferences for Female Bodily Features.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mehmet MehmetogluInstitute for Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6092-8551
Ilmari MäättänenDepartment of Psychology and Logopedics, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3149-6099
Matthias MittnerInstitute for Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0205-7353

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Choosing a romantic partner for a long-term relationship is one of the most significant decisions one makes during our lifetime. We have inherited an evolved framework from our ancestors that contains traits, as well as preferences for these traits, to solve this task. We use this framework consciously or unconsciously to choose prospective romantic partners. Following this reasoning, sexual strategy theory (SST) has been proposed for predicting which traits women and men prefer in a romantic partner for a long-term relationship. These predictions were empirically tested in the current work based on a sample of 1193 Norwegian adolescents who responded to an online questionnaire. We implemented the study hypotheses, derived from SST, in three statistical models, which were tested using structural equation modeling. In brief, our results revealed that women only valued resources more than men when we controlled for materialistic traits. This finding contrasts with SST's prediction that women would value resources more than men, independently of other variables. As for the second prediction that men value physical attractiveness more than women, this pattern existed universally and was independent of, for instance, how egalitarian they were. We thus conclude that SST was only partially supported and that variables that may reflect societal circumstances (e.g., wealth, gender, equality) should be considered when examining the mate choice behavior of women and men. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are also discussed.

Indexed as

mate choicemate selection criteriamating mindsexual selectionsexual strategy theory

Identifiers

PMID38920771
PMCPMC11201084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.