Components of self-perceived mate value

Abstract

Self-perceived mate value is an important concept for evolutionary psychology, and yet there has been little investigation into how it should be measured. Past research has relied upon simple measures, such as self-perceived physical attractiveness, or on instruments where people rate the existence of certain traits. Using a sample of 150 individuals, we show that there are at least seven distinct components of self-perceived mate value. We compare these components with self-ratings of physical attractiveness, current income, as well as one existing measure, the Mate Value Inventory (Kirsner et al., 2003). Only some of these components correlate with these variables, and to varying extents for women and men, suggesting the need for a more comprehensive and sex-specific measure of self-perceived mate value. We discuss the context-dependent nature of mate value, and point to the need for future research to provide confirmatory support for our factors. This research represents an important first step into the accurate assessment of mate value.

Full text

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology
www.jsecjournal.com - 2008, Proceedings of the 2
nd
Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern
Evolutionary Psychology Society
156
Original Article
COMPONENTS OF SELF-PERCEIVED MATE VALUE
Maryanne Fisher
.
Saint Mary’s University
Halifax, NS, Canada
Anthony Cox
Centre for Psychology and Computing
Dartmouth, NS, Canada
Sasha Bennett
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, Canada
Dubravka Gavric
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Abstract
Self-perceived mate value is an important concept for evolutionary psychology, and yet
there has been little investigation into how it should be measured. Past research has relied
upon simple measures, such as self-perceived physical attractiveness, or on instruments
where people rate the existence of certain traits. Using a sample of 150 individuals, we
show that there are at least seven distinct components of self-perceived mate value. We
compare these components with self-ratings of physical attractiveness, current income, as
well as one existing measure, the Mate Value Inventory (Kirsner et al., 2003). Only some
of these components correlate with these variables, and to varying extents for women and
men, suggesting the need for a more comprehensive and sex-specific measure of self-
perceived mate value. We discuss the context-dependent nature of mate value, and point
to the need for future research to provide confirmatory support for our factors. This
research represents an important first step into the accurate assessment of mate value.
Keywords: Mate value, Physical attractiveness, Self-perception, Sociometrics, Factor
analysis
.
AUTHOR NOTE: Please direct all correspondence to: Maryanne Fisher, Saint Mary’s University,
Halifax, NS, Canada. E-mail: mlfisher@smu.ca.
©2008 Journal of Social, Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology
org
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
157
Components of Self-Perceived Mate Value
Decisions pertaining to mating rely primarily upon two aspects of behaviour
(Penke, Todd, Lenton & Fasolo, 2007). The first, mate choice, refers to the factors that
influence the selection of a target for one’s mating efforts. The second, mating tactics,
refers to the process of deciding how one should allocate their resources (e.g., time,
energy, money) when mating. Both of these aspects impact on mate value, in that
researchers could focus on the value of a mate and how to successfully obtain that person,
or they could examine how individuals influence their own mate value to obtain the best
mate possible. In the current work, we focus exclusively on the latter aspect, and
specifically examine self-assessment of one’s own mate value.
Within the area of self-assessment, there are a wide variety of perspectives. Some
researchers (e.g., Landolt, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1995) have concentrated on self-
perceived mate value and the qualities that are linked to this assessment. Alternatively,
one could instead look at the sociometric properties (e.g., the evaluation of self esteem)
that are involved in self-perception (e.g., Brase & Guy, 2004; Denissen, Penke, Schmitt,
& van Aken, in press). Similarly, one could examine how knowing the abstract value of
oneself (e.g., “I am a “6”) plays a role in acquiring mates and competing with rivals (Cox
& Fisher, in press). A very different perspective could involve phenomena such as the
contrast effect, and how it plays a role in establishing mate value (Strout et al., 2008) or
even cyclic influences such as hormonal fluctuations (Beaulieu, 2007). Although these
different views all pertain to self-assessment of mate value, there has been little linkage
of these perspectives. One reason for this disconnect might stem from problems in
defining mate value.
Problems in Defining Mate Value
Mate value has been defined theoretically as, “The total value of the
characteristics that an individual possesses in terms of the potential contribution to his or
her mate’s reproductive success” (Waynforth, 2001, p. 207). Kirsner, Figuerdo, and
Jacobs (2003) propose that mate value is the genetic quality or fitness of oneself as a
sexual partner, which is displayed through observable characteristics. Although the
current research is performed from an evolutionary psychological perspective, it is crucial
to note from the outset that there is no reason why mate value must be exclusively tied to
reproductive success. Elderly individuals, who cannot have children, or younger
individuals without any interest in having children still undergo processes related to mate
value, and yet the decisions of these populations cannot be adequately covered by
evolutionary theories of reproductive success. Moreover, mate value is intrinsic to an
individual, and by defining it solely with respect to someone else, the emphasis on the
individual, and for example, their self-assessment, is lost. Therefore, we propose that a
more appropriate definition of mate value might be the total sum of characteristics an
individual possesses at a given moment and within a particular context that impacts on
their ability to successfully find, attract, and retain a mate.
Measuring the Components of Mate Value
It is important to note that past research has been very narrow in its view of mate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
158
value, such that it has been frequently encapsulated into single items. For women, mate
value is often synonymous with physical attractiveness. For example, Singh (2002), and
Sugiyama (2004) found female mate value was determined “at a glace” with the simple
morphological measure of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and they use the term mate value
synonymously with physical attractiveness, as mediated by WHR. Similarly, Beaulieu
(2007) reported that female mate value is an assessment of a woman’s own physical
attractiveness that changes with ovulatory shifts. Although we agree that males place a
higher premium on a potential mate’s physical attractiveness than women, it remains
undetermined as to how attractiveness is related to female mate value, and whether it is
the most significant factor. In other words, as Waynforth (2001) points out, it is unclear
whether women’s morphology contains significantly more useful signals of mate value
than men’s morphology.
Assessments of men’s mate value reflects the same narrow perspective, with a
focus on physical attributes and the ability to accrue resources, the latter which would
potentially be allocated towards a mate and any resulting children. For example,
Honekopp et al. (2007) suggest that men’s mate value is assessed by their overall
physical fitness, and Penke et al. (2007) found it is based on physical condition and
overall ability to provide resources. A more dynamic model was created by Waynforth
(2001), who documented that women trade-off men’s physical attractiveness for their
resources, and although both are part of male mate value, the latter is more important.
It should be noted, though, that not all past research has had this narrow view of
mate value. Brase and Guy (2004) report that several factors contribute to mate value,
including physical, personality, and demographic factors, of which some are idiosyncratic
variations, such as in personality, physique, or other traits that vary within an otherwise
uniform population. However, in spite of acknowledging that mate value should be multi-
faceted, these researchers resorted to one single item for testing self-perceived mate
value. Although their item included several features like personality and physical
appearance, it rests completely on self-perception of one’s desirability as a mate, which
might fall victim to social desirability bias. Presumably, people are reluctant to say that
they are or would be a poor mate.
A second reason to expect mate value to encompass more facets than previous
considered is because mate value should reflect mate preferences, which are numerous.
Mate value ought to reflect mate preferences, especially since mating mimics market
theory (see Kurzban & Weeden, 2005 for a review). Furthermore, numerous studies
indicate sex differences and similarities in mate preferences. As mentioned, men are
thought to place a higher premium on physical attractiveness, and women prefer
indicators of resources (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Feingold, 1992). However, these sex-
specific preferences are thought to be secondary to the similarities women and men share.
Of the characteristics most preferred for long-term mates, women and men are highly
similar; both prefer kindness, intelligence, emotional stability, and a pleasing disposition
(Buss, 1989).
Finally, given that mate value should be intimately linked with reproductive
success, indicators of parenting ability should be also considered by potential mates.
Physical attractiveness is tied to the probability of one successfully having offspring; for
example, young women are considered more attractive than older women, perhaps due to
fertility (Buss, 1989). However, being able to have children does not automatically
indicate that one possesses adequate parenting ability. Moreover, it does not indicate that
one necessarily wants children, or would be willing to provide the necessary resources.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
159
Therefore, measures of mate value should include parenting ability, as well as one’s
desire to have children.
Current study
There are three objectives for the current study. The first, and most important,
goal was to explore the underlying components of mate value, with a focus on how one
arrives at a self-assessment of their own value. The second goal was to investigate how
these components relate to existing measures of mate value that have been used in the
literature. Third, we wanted to gather additional evidence for the idea that mate
preferences are linked to mate value, at least in terms of women’s preference for
indicators of resources, and men’s preference for physical attractiveness.
Methods
Participants
Forty-four men participated in our study (age, in years, M = 21.8, SD = 3.5), not
including 7 we excluded due to their self-reported non-heterosexual orientation. Eleven
men were single, 7 were dating casually, and 26 were in committed romantic
relationships. We also tested 106 women (age, M = 20.6, SD = 2.2), not including 8 we
excluded due to their self-reported non-heterosexual orientation. Twenty-nine women
were single, 5 were dating casually, and 72 were in committed romantic relationships. All
were students enrolled in at least one undergraduate psychology course at a mid-size
university in Halifax, Canada. Participants were tested in small groups and were given a
small course credit for participation.
Measures and Procedure
Demographics Survey
We created a demographics survey to ascertain the sex, age, current mating
relationship status, self-perceived physical attractiveness, number of long-term
relationships, number of short-term relationships, and annual income of participants.
Participants were also asked, “If you were single, how easy would it be for you to find a
short-term mate for romance” and, using the same initial wording, “for sex”, and “to find
a potential long term mate for marriage.” Responses were scored using a Likert-type
scale, with 1 = extremely difficult to 7 = extremely easy.
Components of Mate Value Survey (CMVS)
Since mate value should relate to mating success, we initially began by creating
the CMVS so that it included the well-cited measure, the “Self Perceived Mating Success
Scale” (Landolt, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1995). A second reason to include this measure
is because self-esteem is a factor that impacts self-assessed mate value and one way to
maintain self-esteem is by mating successfully (e.g., Brase & Guy, 2004; Denissen et. al,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
160
in press). This scale is composed of eight items, used to determine how one perceives the
reactions they receive from the opposite sex (a list of the non-repetitive items is included
in Table 1, under the first factor). Participants respond using a Likert-type scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), such that higher scores indicate higher mating
success. The scale requires one to understand how they would be assessed by the
opposite sex as a mate, and thus, is considered to be a sociometric measure of mate value
(Denissen et al., in press.) It should be noted that, although useful, there are several
limitations with this scale, three of which have been identified by Camargo (2007). First,
it does not provide concrete evidence of mating success in terms of the number of
copulations, and thus reflects perceptions that may not be accurate. It also relies purely on
one’s own perceptions and thus, it may be influenced by one’s memory or social
desirability. Third, it does not include behavioral components, although mating success
itself is highly based on behavior. Note that for brevity, we omitted the reverse-scored
items, “Members of the opposite sex are not very attracted to me” and “I do not receive
many compliments from members of the opposite sex.” Given that these items are
included without the negative wording, the exclusion of these items has minimal impact
on an exploratory factor analysis. The survey had Cronbach’s α = .83.
We then used five different approaches to create our measure. First, we turned to
the existing literature, as reviewed above, on sex-based differences in mate preferences
and created survey items that captured some of these sex-specific preferences (i.e.,
physical attractiveness, wealth, sex appeal). Second, we predicted that mate value could
be related to sociality, such that one who socialized more may have higher mate value,
specifically because they will have more opportunity to meet potential mates.
Furthermore, sociality is a known and documented mate preference (Buss, 1989; Li,
Kenrick, Bailey, & Linsenmeier, 2002). Therefore, we included items related to
popularity and socialization. Third, given our idea that mate value should include feelings
about parenting, we also included items that dealt with one’s perception of parenting
ability, as well as the desire to have children. Fourth, since past behavior is the best
indicator of future behaviour (Conner & Armitage, 1998) and is what one would use for
making accurate self-assessments, we included items dealing with past experiences. We
suggest that self-perceived mating success should relate to one’s reporting of past
experience. Finally, we also included a few control items that addressed issues of self-
perceived low desirability as a mate. For this survey, participants responded using a
Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with some items reverse
scored. All items are listed in Table 1 as part of the factor analysis findings.
Mate Value Inventory
For the sake of comparison, we also included the pre-existing multi-dimensional
measure of mate value (MVI) created by Kirsner et al. (2003). The MVI was created to
explore depressive symptoms in relation to ratings of mate values among self, social
partners, and sexual partners. We included it in our study because it is the only published,
pre-existing multi-dimensional measure of mate value we could locate. The MVI is a list
of 17 traits, where participants are asked, “How well do you feel that these attributes
apply to you currently?” with a scale of -3 (extremely low on this trait) to +3 (extremely
high on this trait). These traits were ambitious, attractive face, attractive body, desires
children, emotionally stable, enthusiastic about sex, faithful to partner, financially secure,
generous, good sense of humour, healthy, independent, intelligent, kind and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
161
understanding, loyal, responsible, and sociable. Mate value is the summed score of these
items. In our study, reliability for this survey was high, Cronbach’s α = .83. As for
procedure, we used paper-and-pencil administration of surveys. The demographic survey
was completed, then the CMVS and then the MVI.
Results
Factor Analysis
T
able 1
* indicates item was reverse loaded
Factor Item Variance
Explained
Cumulative
Variance
Views of the
opposite sex
Members of the opposite sex that I like tend to like me back
Members of the opposite sex notice me
I receive many compliments from members of the opposite sex
I receive sexual invitations from members of the opposite sex
Members of the opposite sex are attracted to me
I can have as many sexual partners as I choose
26.78% 26.78%
Sociality I run into friends wherever I go
I have a large network of friends
I receive many and frequent invites for social events
I consider myself popular
I often stay at home because there isn’t anything to do*
11.79% 38.56%
Parenting I want to have children in my lifetime
I would make a good parent
It is important that the opposite sex view me as a good parent
8.89% 47.45%
Wealth I want people to think that I am wealthy
I have a tendency to display my wealth
6.64% 54.10%
Looks I would like members of the opposite sex to consider me
physically attractive
I would like members of the opposite sex to consider me sexy
6.47% 60.57%
Relationship
history
After I date someone they often want to date me again
Several members of the opposite sex have had crushes on me in
the past 6 months
5.83% 66.41%
Fear of
failure
I would like members of the opposite sex to hit on me more than
they do
I often worry about not having a date
4.69% 71.10%
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
162
We performed an exploratory principal components factor analysis on the CMVS
using a varimax rotation, with Kaiser normalization, and factors with eigenvalues greater
than one were retained (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998). We used the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy to compare the magnitudes of the
observed correlation coefficients to the magnitudes of the partial correlation coefficients
to ascertain whether a factor analysis could proceed. The KMO measure was a moderate
.78, indicating that a factor analysis was appropriate. We also performed Bartlett’s Test
of Sphericity, which yielded significance (χ
2
(231) = 1435.31, p < .000), indicating that
the data were appropriate for factor analysis.
The acceptable sample size for factor analysis, particularly for factor loading,
remains hotly contested in the testing literature (e.g., Mundfrom, Shaw & Ke, 2005).
Given that our sample size was 150 people, we adopted the conservative factor loading
level of .50 to be considered significant at the α = .05 level (Hair et al., 1998). There
were 21 items in the CMVS, which had Cronbach’s α = .83.
The factor analysis revealed 7 components, as listed in Table 1. The first factor
was essentially the “views of the opposite sex,” and contained all the items included in
Landolt et al.’s (1995) Self Perceived Mating Success Scale. It should be noted that
although it was expected, the relationship history items did not significantly load on this
factor. The other factors, in order of the variance they explained, were “sociality,”
“parenting,” “wealth,” “looks,” “relationship history,” and “fear of failure.” Total
variance explained was 71.10%.
Comparison Analyses: CMVS with MVI
We correlated each of the 7 factors, by participant sex, with their MVI scores,
self-perceived ratings of physical attractiveness, and current and expected income. We
included the last two variables, given the emphasis in the mate preference literature on
women’s physical attractiveness and men’s ability to accrue resources.
Women’s MVI (df = 105 for all reported comparisons, two-tailed) correlated
significantly with the 5 of the 7 factors. The significantly correlated factors were views of
the opposite sex (r = .47, p < .000), sociality (r = .34, p < .000), parenting (r = .33, p =
.001), looks (r = .36, p < .000), and relationship history (r = .29, p = .003). Men’s MVI
correlated significantly (df = 43 for all reported comparisons, two-tailed) with 3 of the
factors. These were views of the opposite sex (r = .34, p = .03), sociality (r = .38, p =
.01), and relationship history (r = .67, p < .000). Women and men’s MVI also
significantly correlated with self-perceived physical attractiveness, r = .49, p < .000, and
r = .72, p < .000, respectively.
Comparison Analyses: CMVS with Self-Rated Physical Attractiveness
We then correlated self-perceived physical attractiveness with the 7 factors. For
women, attractiveness significantly correlated with 3 factors: views of the opposite sex (r
= .48, p < .000), sociality (r = .31, p < 000), and looks (r = .39, p < .000). For men, it
significantly correlated with factors: views of the opposite sex (r = .46, p = .002),
sociality (r = .43, p = .004), relationship history (r = .45, p = .003), and negatively with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
163
fear of failure (r = -.33, p = .04). Interestingly, attractiveness did not significantly
correlate with the parenting factor for either women (r = .14, p = ns) or men (r = .003, p =
ns). As well, for neither sex did attractiveness correlate with current income, women (r =
.12, p = ns) and men (r = .11, p = ns).
Comparison Analyses: Relationship Experience, CMVS, and MVI
Given that people should use, at least partly, past mating success when
performing self-assessment of mate value, we asked participants how many short-term
and long-term relationships they have had. We left it to each individual to decide what
“short” or “long” meant. For short-term relationships, women reported a range of 0 to 15,
M = 4.50, SD = 3.50, Md = 4, with 5 women not responding, as compared to men with a
range of 0 to 30, M = 6.39, SD = 6.52, Md = 4.5, and with 4 missing responses. For long-
term relationships, women reported a range of 0 to 5, M = 1.64, SD = 1.06, Md = 2, with
3 missing responses, and men had a range of 0 to 10, M = 1.88, SD = 1.53, Md = 2, with 2
missing responses.
Women’s number of short-term relationships significantly correlated with views
of the opposite sex (r = .24, p = .02) and relationship history (r = .28, p = .005). It also
correlated with how easy they thought it would be for them to locate a short-term mate
for romance (r = .25, p = .01) and for sex (r = .26, p = .009). The number of long-term
relationships significantly correlated with wealth (r = .21, p = .03) and relationship
history (r = .26, p = .008). It also correlated with how easy they thought it would be to
locate a short-term mate for romance (r = .32, p < .000), sex (r = .29, p = .003), or a long-
term mate for marriage (r = .24, p = .01). Note that the number of short-term (r = .13, p =
ns) or long-term relationships (r = .09, p = ns) did not significantly correlate with MVI
scores.
For men, the number of short-term relationships did not significantly correlate
with any of the 7 components on the CMVS (values omitted for brevity), nor with the
MVI (r = .11, p = ns). However, the number of long-term relationships significantly
correlated with relationship history (r = .47, p = .002), negatively with fear of failure (r =
-.34, p = .03), and with the MVI (r = .76, p < .000). It also correlated with how easy they
thought it would be to find a short-term mate for romance (r = .38, p = .02).
Comparison Analyses: Ease of Locating a Mate, CMVS, and MVI
Finally, for the sake of exploration, we used our demographic survey items
pertaining to how easy participants believed it would be for them to find a short-term
mate for romance and for sex, and to find a potential long-term mate for marriage. We
correlated these values with the seven factors, and with MVI scores.
For ease in finding a mate for a short-term romance, women’s scores
significantly correlated with views of the opposite sex (r = .44, p < .000), sociality (r =
.21, p = .03), parenting (r = .27, p = .006), relationship history (r = .34, p < .000), and
negatively with fear of failure (r = -.28, p = .004). For ease in finding a mate for short-
term sex, women’s scores significantly correlated with views of the opposite sex (r = .27,
p = .006), looks (r = .27, p = .006), and relationship history (r = .33, p = .001). For ease
in finding a potential long-term mate for marriage, women’s scores significantly
correlated with views of the opposite sex (r = .37, p < .000), sociality (r = .23, p = .02),
and parenting (r = .20, p = .04).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
164
A highly similar pattern emerged for men. Men’s scores for ease in finding a
mate for a short-term romance significantly correlated with views of the opposite sex (r =
.56, p < .000), sociality (r = .49, p = .001), relationship history (r = .74, p < .000) and
negatively with fear of failure (r = -.35, p = .02). Ease in finding a mate for short-term
sex significantly correlated with views of the opposite sex (r = .66, p < .000), sociality (r
= .47, p = .001), and relationship history (r = .41, p = .007). Ease in finding a long-term
mate for marriage significantly correlated with sociality (r = .35, p = .02) and parenting (r
= .31, p = .04).
As for the MVI, women’s scores significantly correlated with two of these items:
short-term romance (r = .31, p < .000), and potential mate for marriage (r = .30, p <
.002), but not significantly with short-term sex (r = .18, p = ns). For men, MVI scores
significantly correlated with both of the short-term situations: romance (r = .56, p <
.000), and (sex r = .32, p = .04), but not with long-term marriage (r = .12, p = ns).
Discussion
In this paper, we propose that current conceptualizations of mate value are overly
narrow and need to include a wider range of traits. Given that mate preferences are
numerous and multi-faceted, and provide the means for assessing mate value, mate value
must at least partly reflect these diverse preferences. Mate value does not exist in a
vacuum, but rather the traits that underscore it should be those that are preferred by the
opposite sex. Moreover, mate value must be composed of factors that impinge upon or
indirectly relate to genetic quality or fitness, such that they act as honest signals of one’s
worth as a mate. This link between mate value and genetic fitness does not exclude the
fact that there are social and cultural influences on mate value. Indeed, if one was to
modify Tinbergen’s (1963) framework, it may be possible to view the genetic basis of
mate value as being an “ultimate” level of explanation, while social and cultural
influences could act on top of this layer, in a more “proximate” manner. We leave it to
future research to examine how mate value is directly related to genetic fitness, and how
it could by susceptible to social and cultural factors.
Our primary goal was to explore the components of mate value. In light of our
results, we propose there are at least seven factors, as elucidated in Table 1. We make no
claims of having determined all possible factors since it is likely that there are other traits
that may impact mate value. We leave it to future research to expand on our initial
findings and identify new traits and factors that are a component of mate value. Most
importantly, we did not fully explore the link between mate preferences and mate value
in the current study. For example, one could create a list of all documented preferences
and ask individuals to rate themselves on these traits, thereby arriving at an indicator of
self-assessed mate value. One could also then ask others to rate these individuals to see if
self-assessed mate value is accurate.
The possibility of inaccuracy raises another direction for future research. In the
current study, we examined self-perceived mate value, but we did not examine how our
measure correlates with other’s perceptions of one’s mate value. That is, do opposite sex
individuals agree with one’s self perceived mate value? Given that self-assessed mate
value needs to be accurate in order to be useful, these values should strongly correlate.
However, further study is needed in this area to determine the amount of variation when
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
165
assessing an individual’s mate value and the impact of this variation on mate selection
and attainment.
It is also important to note that mate value should change over the lifespan,
according to one’s fertility, relationship status (i.e., romantically involved or not), number
and age of children, and so on. Thus, the factors that we have uncovered are those that are
part of young adults’ mating strategies, and future research needs to examine whether
these same factors are important in older populations. The most significant finding in
our study is that mate value is based on far more than mere physical attractiveness, and
that past indicators of mating success are not necessarily replied upon when making self-
assessments of mate value. Past research that has relied exclusively on one item to
capture mate value as a variable needs to be re-examined in light of the fact that mate
value is a composite of many factors, as shown by the current study.
Obtaining an accurate assessment of one’s own mate value is highly important. It
is extremely advantageous for one to be able to assess the quality of mate that they will
be able to obtain, particularly since one may opt to mate assortatively on dimensions such
as educational attainment or ethnicity (see Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, for a review). That
is, one must know one’s own value in order to determine the difference between their
value and that of a potential mate.
The critical nature of mate value suggests that it must fluctuate with context in
order to be of use. However, there are various ways to view “context.” For example,
context could include those of the same-sex in close proximity. Therefore, due to contrast
effects (Kenrick, Neuberg, Zierk, & Krones, 1994), one might assess their mate value in
relation to potential rivals in the immediate surroundings. Likewise, if an individual is
seen in close proximity to more attractive same-sex friends versus less attractive friends,
her or his mate value will shift accordingly. Alternatively, the context could be
influenced by the pool of potential mates. If one would, in general, be considered as
having average mate value and the pool consisted of predominantly low quality mates,
one might increase their perception of worth. If the pool was to change such that there
was an influx of higher quality mates, one’s mate value would similarly shift downward.
Context can also refer to the type of relationship the individual is seeking or
being considered for as the criteria for establishing a short-term primarily sexual
relationship are different than for short-term romantic relationships, or for long-term
relationships leading to marriage (Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993). Our findings
show that both women and men are sensitive to these differences, and that different
components relate to the difficulty people believe they would experience in locating a
mate for a particular form of relationship. As an aside, it is also interesting that women
believe their physical attractiveness (as defined by the looks component in the factor
analysis) is related to their ability to find a mate for a short-term sexual relationship,
although data from Kenrick et al. (1993) has established that men’s standards are
significantly reduced when seeking sexual relationships. In fact, women’s standards for
physically attractive mates significantly increase when they are seeking a short-term
sexual relationship, which might suggest that they are unaware of men’s views and
instead, are using their own standards. This type of error is not uncommon and is
congruent with errors of cross-sex mind reading (Haselton & Buss, 2000).
It is intriguing that the MVI and our measure, the CMVS, appear to be tapping
into different constructs, especially for men. It is not possible to clearly ascertain why this
difference exists. Both scales had high levels of reliability, so what they are measuring,
they are measuring reliably. One consideration is that the MVI relies on self-assessment
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
166
of various traits, and thus, it could be plagued by social desirability. Although the same
issue could be present with our study, more context was provided in our items. In
addition, some of the items were attitudinal rather than mere self-assessment, which
might lead to more honest responding.
We find it curious that the number of short-term and long-term relationships one
has experienced is not consistently related to the components in the CMVS, MVI, or with
how easy people believe it is for them to locate a mate for short-term romance, sex, or as
a long-term mate for marriage. We had expected that people would use their past
experiences as a basis, at least in part, for determining their mate value. However, this
expectation was not met in the current study, and further investigation needs to determine
what information people are actually using to create their self-assessments of mate value.
It is possible that human’s evolutionary history is a product of our need to mate, and if
necessary, individuals will disregard their value and mate with any obtainable partner
regardless of quality.
There are several limitations with the current study. Given that we used an
exploratory factor analysis, and did so with a sample size of 150, a second study is
required to conduct a confirmatory analysis. As well, instead of being conclusive, the
present study indicates there is a need for a multi-faceted, theoretically grounded measure
of mate value. We are not claiming that we have solved the problem of how to measure
mate value, but rather that we have attempted to open the door for future research, and to
draw awareness to the need for researchers to clearly establish what mate value actually
means, and similarly, how to accurately measure it in future studies.
As has been suggested by others (e.g., Brase & Guy, 2004), mate value is a
multi-faceted concept that encompasses more than a female’s beauty or a male’s
resources. We have identified seven factors that influence one’s assessment of their own
mate value and demonstrated that simplistic measures do not fully evaluate the composite
concept known as mate value. While attractiveness and resources are certainly important,
they are not the only factors influencing the determination of one’s mate value. This
research has begun the process of identifying other components, and provides future
researchers with a starting point for measuring, exploring, and examining the intricacies
associated with the evaluation of ourselves and others as potential mates.
References
Beaulieu, D. (2007). Avoiding costly mating mistakes: Ovulatory shifts in personal mate
value assessment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 441-455.
Brase, G. & Guy, E. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 471-484.
Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Camargo, M. (2007). Hypothesized fitness indicators and mating success. Master’s
thesis, State University of New York at New Paltz.
Conner, M. & Armitage, C. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review
and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,
1429-1464.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
167
Cox, A. & Fisher, M. (in press). A framework for exploring intrasexual competition.
Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology.
Denissen, J., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. & van Aken, M. (in press). Self-esteem reactions to
social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and
nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the
parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5
th
Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haselton, M. & Buss, D. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases
in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81-
91.
Honekopp, J., Rudolph, U., Beier, L., Liebert, A. & Muller, C. (2007). Physical
attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical attractiveness in men.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 106-111.
Kenrick, D., Groth, G., Trost, M. & Sadalla, E. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and
social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-
appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.
Kenrick, D., Neuberg, S., Zierk, K. & Krones, J. (1994). Evolution and social cognition:
Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210-217.
Kirsner, B., Figueredo, A. & Jacobs, W. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural
relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 75, 131-148.
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and
Human Behaviour, 26, 227-244.
Landolt, M., Lalumiere, M. & Quinsey, V. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations
in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology,
16, 3-23.
Li, N., Kenrick, D., Bailey, J. & Linsenmeier, J. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of
mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 947-955.
Mundfrom, D., Shaw, D. & Ke, T. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for
conducting factor analysis. International Journal of Testing, 5, 159-168.
Penke, L., Todd, P., Lenton, A. & Fasolo, B. (2007). How self-assessments can guide
human mating decisions. In G. Geher, & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence:
New insights into intimate relationships, human sexuality, and the mind’s
reproductive system (pp. 37-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Singh, D. (2002). Female mate value at a glance: Relationship of waist-to-hip ratio to
health, fecundity and attractiveness. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23, 81-91.
Strout, S., Dutton, E., Crooker, E., Hudanish, A. & Jones, S. (2008, May). Am I hot or
not? The effects of social comparison on self-perception of mate value. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology
Society, Manchester, New Hampshire.
Sugiyama, L. (2004). Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder?
Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Self-Perceived Mate Value
168
and Human Behavior, 25, 51-62.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods in ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie,
20, 410-433.
Waynforth, D. (2001). Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically
attractive men. Human Nature, 12, 207-219.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.