The parental investment model and minimum mate choice criteria in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trivers' parental investment model states that individuals facing higher levels of parental investment will become increasingly choosy in their choice of mates. For humans, this leads to two predictions. First, both males and females will be choosier in relationships more likely to lead to the production of children. Second, females will be choosier than are males, because their minimum risk of parental investment is higher. Previous studies of human mate choice found support for these predictions, with one curious exception: male choosiness was lower for short-term sexual relationships involving no relationship commitment (one-night stands) than for short-term relationships involving no sexual activity (single dates). Because the risk of parental investment would be higher in a one-night stand, this suggests that true risk of parental investment was not the underlying factor governing choosiness levels, either because study subjects assigned different levels of sexual activity to the relationships than were intended by the investigators of the study or because perceived risk is more important in human mate choice than real risk. To confirm that male/female differences in choosiness criteria exist in humans, and to evaluate the effect that different expected levels of real or perceived parental investment may have on choosiness, we studied mate choosiness in the context of five types of relationships that reflected explicitly defined, increasing levels of risk of parental investment for both males and females. The subjects were 468 undergraduate students, mostly between the ages of 18–24. By using questionnaires, male and female participants rated their minimum requirements in a potential mate for 29 personal characteristics with respect to level of relationship. Our results confirm the major predictions of the parental investment model for humans but suggest that sex differences in choosiness are better explained by perceived rather than real risk of parental investment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".