Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Article
Netflix and Chill? What Sex Differences
Can Tell Us About Mate Preferences
in (Hypothetical) Booty-Call Relationships
Evita March
1
, George Van Doorn
1
, and Rachel Grieve
2
Abstract
The booty-call relationship is defined by both sexual characteristics and emotional involvement. In the current study, men’s and
women’s preferences for a booty-call mate were explored. Men and women were predicted to exhibit different mate preferences
depending on whether they considered a booty-call relationship a short- or long-term relationship. Participants (N¼559, 74%
women) completed an anonymous online questionnaire, designing their ideal booty-call mate using the mate dollars paradigm.
Both sexes considered the physical attractiveness and kindness of a booty-call mate a necessity, expressing both short- and long-
term mate preferences. The current study highlights the need to explore mate preferences outside the dichotomy of short- and
long-term relationships, providing evidence of a compromise relationship.
Keywords
mate preferences, booty calls, short-term relationship, long-term relationship, mating, mate budget
Date received: August 19, 2018; Accepted: October 16, 2018
Sex differences in mate preferences are predominantly con-
sidered in the context of long-term, committed relationships
(e.g., Buss, 1989; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002)
and casual, short-term sexual relationships (e.g., Li & Ken-
rick, 2006). However, recent research has noted that not all
romantic relationships fall into the dichotomy of short- or
long term (Jonason, 2013; Jonason, Valentine, & Li, 2012;
March & Grieve, 2015; Wentland & Reissing, 2011). The
spectrum of relationships individuals engage in includes
booty calls (Jonason, Li, & Cason, 2009; Jonason, Li, &
Richardson, 2011), fuck buddies (Wentland & Reissing,
2011), and friends with benefits (Bisson & Levine, 2009),
among others. If these relationships are legitimate in their
own right (i.e., they exist outside the dichotomy of short- and
long-term relationships), there is a paucity of research con-
cerning mate preferences within each relationship paradigm.
The aim of this study was to consider, for the first time, the
characteristics men and women consider necessities in a
potential booty-call mate; a liaison that has elements of both
short- and long-term relationships. In addition, exploring the
characteristics men and women consider necessities in a
booty-call partner will shed light on whether men and women
consider the booty call a short-term, unemotional interaction,
or a short-term interaction that has the potential to develop
into a long-term relationship.
Long-Term Mate Preferences
In regard to long-term, potential mates, men rank the physical
attractiveness of a mate as being more important than do
women, while women rate the status and resources of a mate
as more important than do men (e.g., Hill & Reeve, 2004;
March & Bramwell, 2012; March & Grieve, 2014; Shackel-
ford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). These sex differences are found
to be reliable and consistent across cultures (Buss, 1989; Buss
et al., 1990). In addition, studies have found the trait of kind-
ness is valued equally by the sexes (e.g., Buss, 1989), with both
1
School of Health and Life Sciences, Federation University Australia, Victoria,
Australia
2
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Evita March, School of Health and Life Sciences, Federation University
Australia, Northways Road Churchill, VIC 3842, Australia.
Email: e.march@federation.edu.au
Evolutionary Psychology
October-December 2018: 1–10
ªThe Author(s) 2018
DOI: 10.1177/1474704918812138
journals.sagepub.com/home/evp
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE
and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
men and women considering a long-term mate’s kindness a
necessity (Li et al., 2002). However, some studies have shown
that women place a higher priority on a mate’s kindness than
do men (Evans & Brase, 2007). Both evolutionary and social–
economic theory attempt to elucidate the origins of these pre-
ferences in a long-term mate.
As modern dating behavior is considered to reflect evolved
adaptations (Stanik & Ellsworth, 2010), these mate prefer-
ences have been attributed to evolutionary mechanisms.
According to evolutionary theory, as the reproductive costs
are higher for women (e.g., internal gestation, extended par-
ental care; Trivers, 1972), women have come to value a long-
term mate who has the ability to contribute the resources
necessary to ensure the survival of any resulting offspring
(Buss, 2006; Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick,
2002). Meanwhile, as men’s reproductive success is con-
strained by access to fertile women (Tadinac, 2010), men
have come to value qualities (e.g., physical attractiveness)
that reflect reproductive potential in budding mates (Mon-
toya, 2005). Women may also seek a mate who is kind, as
kindness may indicate that their potential mate is willing to
share their resources (Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & West,
1995) and be a better, more attentive parent (Urbaniak &
Kilmann, 2006). Thus, evolutionary theory adequately
explains why women consider a mate’s kindness more
important than do men (e.g., Evans & Brase, 2007) and why
kindness is important for both men and women when selecting
long-term partners (i.e., is likely a cue to good nurturing
ability; see Buss, 1989). Both evolutionary theory and
social–economic theory highlight the importance of adjusting
to the environment (Eagly & Wood, 1999) and are not
considered inherently incompatible (Buss & Barnes, 1986;
Feingold, 1990; Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1987).
However, evolutionary research has been criticized for a
heavy focus on between-sex differences in mate preferences
rather than within-sex differences in mate preferences (Gang-
estad & Simpson, 2000; Walter, 1997).
To address these within-sex differences, social theories attri-
bute sex differences in mate preferences to social roles adopted
by men and women (social role theory; Eagly & Wood, 1999)
and economic constraints the sexes face (Moore & Cassidy,
2007). Social role theory proposes that historical labor divi-
sions have led men and women to take on different social roles,
with this occupation of different roles resulting in development
of gender roles (Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Traditionally, men
secure higher paying jobs and higher status professions relative
to women (Hamida, Mineka, & Bailey, 1998). Consequently,
women’s ability to provide for themselves has been historically
constrained (Moore & Cassidy, 2007). Because of the restric-
tions women face regarding individual advancement, women
seek in mates the characteristics that have historically been
denied to them (i.e., status and resources; Buss & Barnes,
1986). As men have not experienced the same historical eco-
nomic constraints, men are able to focus their initial search on
the physical attractiveness of a mate.
Short-Term Mate Preferences
Both sexes pursue and engage in short-term, sexual relation-
ships (see Strout, Fisher, Kruger, & Steeleworthy, 2010). As
such, researchers have contrasted the preferences people show
for a short-term mate (e.g., one-night stand) with preferences
for a long-term mate (e.g., spouse; Scheib, 2001). With regard
to short-term mates, both men and women have been found to
place the most emphasis on the mate’s physical attractiveness
(Wiederman & Dubois, 1998). For example, Buunk, Dijkstra,
Fetchenhauer, and Kenrick (2002) showed that both sexes
desire a higher level of physical attractiveness as relationship
lengths shorten.
Given this information, it seems that little changes for men
across relationship types (i.e., physical attractiveness is prior-
itized), but that the story is more interesting for women. Unmis-
takable in the existing research is that women prefer physically
attractive mates for short-term relationships and mates with
high status and resources for long-term relationships (Hill &
Reeve, 2004; March & Bramwell, 2012; Schulte-Hostedde,
Eys, & Johnson, 2008; Shackelford et al., 2005). It is perhaps
the case that women adapt their mating strategies as a conse-
quence of the nature of short-term relationships, thus prioritiz-
ing a mate’s genetic quality over status and resources. Strategic
pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000) posits that indi-
viduals will engage in different mating strategies according to
environmental conditions and relationship styles. By recogniz-
ing individual differences in mating strategies and environ-
ments, strategic pluralism theory can adequately account for
the diversity of women engaging in short-term mating. For
example, individuals use serious romantic relationships to gain
socioemotional support and one-night stands to gain sexual
gratification (Jonason, 2013).
Alternatively, sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt,
1993) suggests that women may use short-term mating as a
means to evaluate mates as potential long-term partners (see
Jonason et al., 2009). Women might use short-term sexual
relationships to identify and acquire a long-term partner by
gauging the benefits gained when in the short-term relationship
(Greiling & Buss, 2000). Taken together, both sexual strategies
theory and strategic pluralism theory can account for mating
strategies of men and women. However, although some women
may engage in short-term relationships as a means to identify
potential long-term mates (i.e., sexual strategies theory),
women may still engage in short-term relationships for reasons
other than acquiring a long-term mate, such as securing good
genes that will benefit potential offspring (Kruger, Fisher, &
Jobling, 2003; Vigil, Geary, & Byrd-Craven, 2006).
The Nature of Booty-Call Relationships
Research on sex differences in mate preferences has predomi-
nantly focused on two “polar-opposite relationship types”
(Jonason, Li, & Richardson, 2011, p. 486): short term and long
term (see also Aitken, Lyons, & Jonason, 2013; Jonason et al.,
2009). However, not all human relations fall precisely within
2Evolutionary Psychology
these two categories. Some relationships incorporate elements
of both short- and long-term relationships, an example being
the booty call. The booty call is characterized by a relationship
that is not committed or expected to be monogamous (Singer
et al., 2006) but incorporates repeated sexual encounters
(Jonason et al., 2012). By definition, a booty call involves
contacting a non-long-term mate with the primary purpose of
engaging in sexual activity. This contact is most commonly
made via telephone (Jonason et al., 2009) or by text message
(Wentland & Reissing, 2011). Spontaneous contact is consid-
ered to be a key feature of the booty-call relationship.
The booty-call relationship has been conceptualized as a
“compromise” relationship between the sexes (Jonason et al.,
2009, 2011). According to this premise, it consists of sexual
encounters with lower investment than a committed relation-
ship (and is thus appealing to men) but has an element of
commitment greater than that of a one-time sexual encounter
(and is thus appealing to women). Wentland and Reissing
(2011) reported that individuals engaged in a booty call do not
consider the other party a friend (and, as such, differs from the
friends with benefits relationship) and thus do not socialize
with one another (see also Jonason et al., 2011). Further,
Wentland and Reissing (2011) reported that the booty call does
not involve emotional investment and is characterized by an
“unemotional, perfunctory manner” (p. 87). However, Jonason
and colleagues (2011) showed that, although the booty-call
relationship often lacks the emotional acts found in serious,
long-term relationships (such as talking and handholding),
more emotional, intimate acts were found to occur more often
in booty-call relationships relative to one-night stands. For
example, kissing, manual sex, fondling of breasts/chest, and
anal sex were reported to occur significantly more often in
booty calls than in one-night stands.
As is evident above, there are differences in the defining
qualities of a booty call. On the one hand, the booty-call rela-
tionship is characterized as unemotional and exists purely for
spontaneous, sexual gain (Jonason, 2013). This definition is
supported by findings showing that both men and women
accept or reject a booty call based on the initiator’s physical
attractiveness (Jonason et al., 2009). On the other hand, the
booty-call relationship may involve more emotional involve-
ment and time than a short-term, casual sex relationship and
thus gives women the opportunity to screen the booty-call par-
ticipant as a potential long-term mate (Jonason et al., 2011).
This idea is supported by findings showing that men were more
likely than women to report that a booty call did not transition
into a long-term relationship as the men were only interested in
a sexual relationship (Jonason et al., 2009). Women, on the
other hand, were more likely to report that the booty call did
not transition into a long-term relationship because the other
person was not interested in a long-term relationship. Jonason,
Li, and Cason (2009) argue that this result is substantial support
for the claim that men tend to view booty calls as mostly
sexual, whereas women may have some level of emotional
involvement.
Aim and Hypotheses
The current study aimed to assess the characteristics consid-
ered necessities in a booty-call mate, an area which has not
yet received attention in the literature. This will help
elucidate whether men and women consider the booty-call
relationship purely short term or a short-term relationship
with long-term potential. The current study will build on
previous research of Li, Bailey, Kenrick, and Linsenmeier
(2002) and Li and Kenrick (2006).
Previous research has shown men consider physical attrac-
tiveness a necessity in both long- and short-term mates (Li
et al., 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Women, however, consider
social level (i.e., status and resources) and kindness a necessity
in a long-term mate and physical attractiveness a necessity in a
short-term mate. Li and colleagues (2002) define a necessity as
a characteristic that is initially sought in a mate, and after this
characteristic is obtained, the search for other characteristics
(defined as luxuries) begins. Here, a necessity is defined as a
mate characteristic that must be satisfied in order to engage in a
booty call; once a necessity is satisfied, other desirable char-
acteristics can be sought (described as luxuries; Li et al., 2002).
Studying the characteristics men and women consider
necessities in a booty-call mate should reveal (1) whether
women consider a booty-call mate a potential long-term part-
ner, (2) whether the physical attractiveness of a potential
booty-call mate is actually a necessity, and (3) if kindness is
a necessity for men and women in a booty-call mate (kindness
is a characteristic not commonly valued in short-term mates but
is considered by both sexes as highly desirable in long-term
mates; Buss & Barnes, 1986). To properly assess the mate
preferences for a booty-call relationship, mate preferences
regarding long- and short-term mates were also assessed. On
the basis of previous research, if both men and women consider
a booty call a short-term, unemotional relationship (e.g., Went-
land & Reissing, 2011), then:
Hypothesis 1: Both men and women will consider physical
attractiveness a necessity.
Hypothesis 2: Both men and women will consider kindness
a luxury.
Hypothesis 3: Women will consider social level a luxury.
However, if a booty-call relationship is a hybrid relationship
that helps reach a compromise between the sexes—offering
men sexual encounters with limited (although some) emotional
investment and women with sexual encounters alongside the
opportunity to trial run a potential long-term mate (e.g.,
Jonason et al., 2009, 2011)—then:
Hypothesis 4: Both men and women will consider physical
attractiveness a necessity.
Hypothesis 5: Both men and women will consider kindness
a necessity.
Hypothesis 6: Women will consider social level a necessity.
March et al. 3
Method
Participants
There were 559 participants with a mean age of 24.03 years
(SD ¼11.05), with 2 participants not supplying their age. Of
the participants, 26.48%(148 people) were men, and 73.52%
(411 people) were women. Regarding sexual orientation,
87.84%(491 people) were heterosexual, 6.44%(36 people)
were homosexual, 5.19%(29 people) were bisexual, and
0.54%(3 people) identified as “Other.” For men, 54.76%had
previously been involved in a booty-call relationship,
whereas 58.14%of women had previously been involved in
a booty-call relationship. For men, 9.52%were currently
involved in a booty-call relationship, whereas 7.06%of
women were currently involved in a booty-call relationship.
Finally, 58%(324 people) were current university students.
There were no selection criteria, other than being aged 18
years or older (i.e., participantswerenotrequiredtobeina
relationship). A power analysis (G*Power; Faul, Erdfelder,
Lang, & Buchner, 2007) indicated that a sample size of 155
was required to yield power of 80%to detect a medium effect
size of at least 0.25 (a¼.05). The current sample size (N¼
559) was therefore considered to have adequate power to
yield reliable results.
Materials
An anonymous online questionnaire included a demo-
graphics section and a mate budget. Demographics sought
information about participant’s age, sex, current education
status, if participants had ever been involved in a booty-call
relationship, and if participants were currently involved in a
booty-call relationship. The booty-call relationship was
defined for participants as “an uncommitted relationship
where communication (e.g., phone call, texting) only takes
place when there is the urgent intent, either stated or
implied, of having sexual activity and/or intercourse” (see
Jonason et al., 2009).
The current study used the mate budget paradigm (e.g.,
Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012; Li et al., 2002; March &
Grieve, 2015). The mate budget paradigm requires participants
to spend hypothetical mate dollars on five traits (physical
attractiveness, creativity, kindness, liveliness, and social level)
on a scale ranging from 0 to 100 percentiles. Before spending
the mate dollars, participants are provided with a brief descrip-
tion of each characteristic and an overview of the budget allo-
cation method. Although all characteristics are included in the
budget, only physical attractiveness, kindness, and social level
were analyzed.
There were two conditions: low budget (10 mate dollars)
and high budget (30 mate dollars). Participants were asked to
spend all their mate dollars on the five characteristics in each
condition, and presentation of the low and high budget was
counterbalanced (46.5%of participants received the low bud-
get first). Characteristics that received the most mate dollars
when the budget was low were considered mate traits men and
women considered a necessity, and characteristics that received
the most mate dollars when the budget was high were consid-
ered mate traits men and women considered a luxury.
To complete the mate budget, participants were randomly
allocated into one of the three conditions: long term, short term,
and booty call. For long term, participants were asked to spend
mate dollars to design their ideal long-term mate (someone
they might wish to marry). For short term, participants were
asked to spend mate dollars to design their ideal short-term
mate (someone they may have casual sex with for one eve-
ning). For booty call, participants were asked to spend mate
dollars to design their ideal booty-call mate (someone with
whom they will communicate with over a long-term period
with the intent of short-term sexual gratification).
Procedure
Participants were recruited on and off an Australian university
campus, with the study promoted as investigating personality
and relationships. Participants on campus were recruited via
hard copy advertisements that informed participants of the
voluntary, anonymous, and online questionnaire. The posted
advertisement provided the web link to the online question-
naire. Off campus participants were recruited via social media
advertisements that contained the same information as the
hard copy advertisements. Participants were informed that the
online questionnaire would take roughly 10 min of their time
to complete. Upon completion of the questionnaire, partici-
pants were thanked and scores were amalgamated into the
data file.
Results
Three 3 22 mixed-models analyses of variance were
conducted with type of relationship (short term, booty call,
and long term) and gender (men and women) as the between-
subjects independent variables, budget (low and high) as the
within-subjects independent variable, and the three mate
characteristics of physical attractiveness, kindness, and social
level as the dependent variables (see Table 1 for descriptive
statistics). Table 2 presents a summary of the main effects,
and the full report of the main effect analyses can be found in
Appendix.
Physical Attractiveness
For physical attractiveness, there was a significant two-way
interaction between budget and gender, F(2, 493) ¼25.10,
p¼.001, Z2
p¼.05. In addition, there was a significant
two-way interaction between budget and relationship type,
F(2, 493) ¼22.85, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.09. No other interactions
reached significance.
Post hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed that both
men and women spent more mate dollars on physical attrac-
tiveness in the low budget condition than they did in the high
budget condition, p¼.001, and for each type of relationship
4Evolutionary Psychology
(short term, booty call, and long term), both men and women
spent significantly more mate dollars in the low budget than the
high budget, p¼.001, .001, and .011, respectively. Although
the omnibus three-way interaction did not reach statistical sig-
nificance, post hoc tests revealed significant results. However,
due to the nonsignificance of the overall test, these results
should be interpreted with caution. For short-term relation-
ships, both men (p¼.001) and women (p¼.001) spent sig-
nificantly more mate dollars on physical attractiveness in the
low budget compared to the high budget condition. In addition,
for booty-call relationships, both men (p¼.001) and women (p
¼.001) spent significantly more mate dollars on physical
attractiveness in the low budget compared to the high budget
condition. However, for long-term relationships, only men (p¼
.001) and not women (p¼.612) spent significantly more mate
dollars on physical attractiveness in the low budget compared
to the high budget condition. This three-way interaction is
visually depicted in Figure 1.
Kindness
For kindness, there was a significant two-way interaction
between budget and gender, F(1, 493) ¼7.86, p¼.005,
Z2
p¼.02. Although the interaction between gender and
relationship type did not reach significance, there was a signif-
icant two-way interaction between budget and relationship
type, F(2, 493) ¼10.29, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.04. Finally, there was
a significant three-way interaction for budget, gender, and rela-
tionship type, F(2, 493) ¼4.04, p¼.018, Z2
p¼.02.
In relation to the significant interaction between budget and
gender, post hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction showed
that women spent significantly more mate dollars on kindness
in the low budget compared to the high budget, p¼.001. In
relation to the significant interaction between budget and rela-
tionship type, both men and women spent significantly more
mate dollars in the low budget than the high budget condition,
Table 1. Mean Percentages Allocated to Each Characteristic for Men and Women in Low and High Budgets for Short-Term Mates, Booty-Call
Mates, and Long-Term Mates.
Characteristics
Men Women Total
Low Budget High Budget Low Budget High Budget Low Budget High Budget
M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)
Short-term relationship
Physical attractiveness 40.71 (15.62) 27.61 (4.90) 32.74 (11.66) 24.54 (5.12) 34.53 (13.05) 25.23 (5.22)
Kindness 17.22 (9.09) 17.93 (6.34) 21.85 (8.14) 23.06 (5.74) 20.80 (8.56) 21.90 (6.24)
Social level 13.97 (7.75) 17.83 (7.00) 16.75 (7.40) 18.69 (5.09) 16.12 (7.55) 18.49 (5.57)
Booty-call relationship
Physical attractiveness 44.64 (19.99) 25.50 (5.99) 30.54 (18.84) 23.37 (5.72) 34.47 (20.82) 24.09 (5.87)
Kindness 19.51 (16.96) 20.29 (7.37) 29.06 (15.98) 23.62 (6.84) 25.85 (16.85) 22.50 (7.17)
Social level 10.61 (10.76) 17.88 (6.34) 12.65 (9.19) 18.77 (6.43) 11.97 (9.75) 18.47 (6.39)
Long-term relationship
Physical attractiveness 25.87 (14.22) 21.13 (6.65) 20.61 (7.61) 20.14 (3.90) 21.69 (9.54) 20.35 (4.59)
Kindness 26.41 (6.76) 23.69 (5.03) 30.35 (8.38) 25.45 (4.08) 29.54 (8.22) 25.09 (4.34)
Social level 15.98 (10.22) 18.96 (5.59) 17.91 (9.30) 19.39 (5.76) 17.51 (9.50) 19.30 (5.71)
Table 2. Summary of Main Effects for Gender, Relationship Type, and
Budget on Characteristics of Physical Attractiveness, Kindness, and
Social Level.
Characteristics Ftest Z2
p
Physical attractiveness
Sex F(1, 493) ¼40.46*** .08
Relationship type F(2, 493) ¼53.45*** .18
Budget F(1, 493) ¼208.33*** .30
Kindness
Sex F(1, 493) ¼38.37*** .07
Relationship type F(2, 493) ¼27.43*** .10
Budget F(1, 493) ¼13.56*** .03
Social level
Sex F(1, 493) ¼4.69* .01
Relationship type F(2, 493) ¼6.24** .03
Budget F(1, 493) ¼93.16*** .16
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001. Figure 1. Three-way interaction for variables of budget, gender, and
type of relationship for percentage of mate dollars spent on physical
attractiveness. Error bars represent standard error. Y-axis begins at
15%.
March et al. 5
p¼.011, and .001, respectively. No other comparisons
reached significance.
For the significant three-way interaction of budget, gender,
and relationship type, post hoc comparisons demonstrated that
for booty-call relationships, only women spent significantly
more mate dollars on kindness in the low budget compared
to the high budget, p¼.001. This result indicates that women,
not men, consider the kindness of a booty-call mate a necessity.
For short-term mates, there were no significant comparisons.
Finally, for long-term relationships, both men (p¼.047) and
women (p¼.001) spent significantly more mate dollars on
kindness in the low budget compared to the high budget, sug-
gesting that both men and women consider the kindness of a
long-term mate a necessity. This three-way interaction is
visually depicted in Figure 2.
Social Level
For social level, there was no significant two-way interaction
between budget and gender, F(1, 493) ¼3.47, p¼.063, Z2
p¼
.01. There was, however, a significant two-way interaction
between budget and relationship type, F(2, 493) ¼10.32,
p¼.001, Z2
p¼.04. There was no significant two-way interac-
tion between gender and relationship type, F(2, 493) ¼.08,
p¼.920, Z2
p¼.01. Finally, there was no significant three-way
interaction for budget, gender, and relationship type,
F(2, 493) ¼.07, p¼.930, Z2
p¼.01.
To further explore these interactions, post hoc tests with a
Bonferroni correction were conducted. For the interaction
of budget and relationship type, post hoc tests showed that
for all relationship types, individuals spent significantly more
mate dollars in the high budget compared to the low budget,
p¼.001, .001, and.001 for short term, booty calls, and long
term, respectively.
Although the omnibus three-way interaction did not reach
statistical significance, post hoc tests revealed significant
results. However, due to the nonsignificance of the overall test,
these results should be interpreted with caution. Post hoc com-
parisons show that for short-term relationships, both men (p¼
.001) and women (p¼.002) spent significantly more mate
dollars on social level in the high budget compared to the low
budget. In addition, for booty-call relationships, both men (p¼
.001) and women (p¼.001) spent significantly more mate
dollars on social level in the high budget compared to the low
budget. Finally, for long-term relationships, both men (p¼
.013) and women (p¼.015) spent significantly more mate
dollars on social level in the high budget compared to the low
budget. These results suggest that for these three relationship
types, both men and women consider social level a luxury. This
three-way interaction is visually depicted in Figure 3.
Discussion
The aim of the current study was to assess the characteristics
considered necessities in a booty-call mate, an interpersonal
relationship which has received limited attention in the litera-
ture. Predictions were based on whether the booty-call relation-
ship is considered a short-term, unemotional relationship or a
hybrid long- and short-term relationship. To properly assess the
mate preferences for a booty-call relationship, mate prefer-
ences regarding long- and short-term mates were also assessed.
Long- and Short-Term Mate Preferences
For short-term mates, although the omnibus test for the three-
way interaction did not reach significance, significant post hoc
tests indicated that both men and women considered the phys-
ical attractiveness of a short-term mate necessity—a result fur-
ther supported by the significant two-way interaction between
budget and relationship type. The result of both sexes consid-
ering the physical attractiveness of a short-term mate a
Figure 2. Three-way interaction for variables of budget, gender, and
type of relationship for percentage of mate dollars spent on kindness.
Error bars represent standard error. Y-axis begins at 15%. Figure 3. Three-way interaction for variables of budget, gender, and
type of relationship for percentage of mate dollars spent on social
level. Error bars represent standard error. Y-axis begins at 10%.
6Evolutionary Psychology
necessity corroborates the results of Li and Kenrick (2006).
Furthermore, this result provides support for the premise that
when considering a short-term mate, women place increased
emphasis on physical attractiveness (Buunk et al., 2002; Wie-
derman & Dubois, 1998). The current results showed that both
men and women did not consider the kindness or the social
level of a short-term mate a necessity, in line with Li and
Kenrick (2006). Interestingly, Li and Kenrick reported that
men considered the kindness of a short-term mate a luxury—
a result not replicated here. It is possible that as the mate budget
has had limited use in the literature, the results are still rela-
tively inconsistent.
Only men considered the physical attractiveness of a long-
term mate a necessity, further corroborating previous research
of Li and colleagues (2002). In addition, both men and women
considered the kindness of a long-term mate a necessity and
the social level of a long-term mate a luxury. Although Li and
colleagues (2002) established that only women, not men, con-
sidered a long-term mate’s kindness as a necessity, both sexes
have been shown to consider kindness as one of the most
important and desirable traits for a potential romantic partner
to possess (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Lippa, 2007). However,
women considering the social level of a long-term mate a
luxury, not a necessity, are inconsistent with the results of
Li et al. (2002).
Although inconsistent, and as mentioned above, it should be
noted that only a small body of research has used the mate
budget paradigm. As such, characteristics men and women
consider necessities and luxuries in mate preferences may not
yet be established. It should be noted that the current results do
not suggest that women do not care about the social level of a
mate (nor do they suggest that men do not care about the social
level of a mate) but simply may not consider this characteristic
a necessity. Previous research posits many factors (e.g., gender
roles, level of income) may influence a woman’s desire for a
mate to possess significant status and resources (e.g., Eagly,
Eastwick, & Johannesen-Schmit, 2009; Moore, Cassidy, &
perrett, 2010). As such, women not considering a long-term
mate’s social level a necessity may not be due to methodolo-
gical limitations, but rather individual differences within and
between samples. Importantly, this result provides support for
strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), as
women may be strategically adapting their mate preferences
according to their environment.
Booty-Call Mate Preferences
Based on previous studies (Jonason et al., 2009, 2011; Li et al.,
2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006) regarding short-term, booty-call,
and long-term relationships, we predicted that if both men and
women consider a booty call a short-term, unemotional sexual
relationship, physical attractiveness should be a necessity for
both sexes, with kindness and social level as luxuries. Results
were that, regardless of gender, physical attractiveness was
considered a necessity in a booty-call mate. However, women
were found to consider the kindness of a booty-call mate a
necessity. As women did not consider the kindness of a
short-term mate a necessity, these results do not support the
premise that the booty-call relationship is considered a short-
term, unemotional sexual relationship. Importantly, it should
be noted that both men and women consider the kindness of a
long-term mate a necessity. Combined with the current result
that both men and women consider the physical attractiveness
of a booty call, a mate, and a necessity, results of the current
study support the premise of Jonason and colleagues (2011)
who proposed the booty-call relationship as a sexual relation-
ship but more emotional than the short-term, one-night stand
relationship. Thus, results of the current study best support the
second hypothesis, which proposed that a booty-call relation-
ship may be a hybrid long- and short-term relationship that
helps reach a compromise between the sexes.
However, it should be noted that the compromise relation-
ship appears to only be the case for women, not men. Although
women’s booty-call mate preferences appeared to be an amal-
gamation of short- and long-term mate preferences, men’s
booty-call mate preferences mirrored their short-term mate
preferences. Thus, the current study appears to support Jonason
and colleagues’ (2009) suggestion that the booty call may be
characterized as a “compromise relationship” between the
sexes (see Jonason et al., 2009) in that it allows men to have
sex without a high level of commitment, while offering women
the potential for future commitment. Results of the current
study also support the premise that men and women differ more
in preferences when considering primarily sexual relationships
(e.g., Jonason, 2013), further supporting sexual strategies the-
ory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). The results of the current study
provide further conceptualization of new contemporary rela-
tionship styles in comparison to traditional styles (e.g., long-
term marriage, short-term casual one-night stand).
Finally, although the omnibus test did not reach significance
and thus results be interpreted with caution, post hoc compar-
isons showed both men and women considered the social level
of a booty-call mate a luxury. Interestingly, social level was
considered by both sexes to be a luxury across all types of
relationships (short term, booty call, and long term). Given this
consistency, it appears that men’s and women’s preference for
a booty-call mate’s social level is reflective of their short- and
long-term mate preferences. Thus, it can still be said that booty-
call mate preferences are an amalgamation of both short- and
long-term mate preferences.
Limitations and Future Directions
A potential limitation of the current study was that the list of
characteristics (i.e., physical attractiveness, kindness, and
social level) was short. Although this list of traits was consis-
tent with previous work in this area (e.g., Li et al., 2002), traits
not assessed or explored here might be deemed important in a
potential booty-call mate. Future research could assess addi-
tional mate characteristics, such as intelligence (Lippa, 2007),
creativity (e.g., Li et al., 2002), and even other traits that may
March et al. 7
be considered more important in a primarily sexual relation-
ship, such as eroticism and sexual performance.
A further limitation is the relatively small sample size.
Although post hoc tests reached significance, overall omnibus
tests did not. This, combined with the effect sizes of these tests,
suggests that the power of the test may have been constrained
by the sample size. Future research should seek to recruit a
larger number of participants when conducting comparisons
between relationship types. Nonetheless, the sample size for
the current study (N¼559) was substantially larger than pre-
vious research examining booty-call relationships (e.g., N¼
123 in Collins & Horn, 2018; N¼61 in Jonason et al., 2009; N
¼123 in Jonason et al., 2011; N¼192 in Wesche, Claxton,
Lefkowitz, & van Dulman, 2017), and because our sample
included a substantial proportion of nonstudents, we suggest
that our results provide reasonable insight into this particular
interpersonal behavior.
The results of the current study may also be limited in gen-
eralizing to all sexual orientations, as the sample was predomi-
nantly heterosexual (88.2%). Although the mating strategies of
homosexual and heterosexual men and women are not consid-
ered to differ (Symons, 1979), some research has shown dif-
ferences in mate preferences for homosexual and heterosexual
women (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994). As such,
although homosexual men’s and women’s mate preferences
may be fundamentally similar to their heterosexual counter-
parts, this similarity should not be assumed (March, Grieve,
& Marx, 2014). Future research would benefit from exploring
mate preferences of individuals other than those with a hetero-
sexual orientation in these relationship paradigms (i.e., booty
calls, friends with benefits, and fuck buddies).
Conclusion
An apparent flaw in much of the existing literature on relation-
ships is the assumption that there is a dichotomy of relation-
ships and that all relationships can be characterized as either
short term or long term. Results of the current study show that
not all human relationships fit within this dichotomy, as some
relations (e.g., the booty-call relationship) incorporate charac-
teristics of both short- and long-term relationships. Our results
support previous suggestions that the booty-call relationship is
a compromise relationship that benefits the sexes in different
ways (e.g., Jonason et al., 2009, 2011). However, the current
study also extends previous research by establishing the neces-
sity of a booty-calls mate’s physical attractiveness, kindness,
and social level. Furthermore, the current study shows that both
sexes considered the physical attractiveness of a booty-call
mate a necessity, suggesting that both sexes could be using the
booty-call relationship as a means of satisfying short-term sex-
ual means (e.g., Jonason, 2013). Finally, although previous
research has conceptualized the booty-call relationship as a
compromise between men and women (e.g., Jonason et al.,
2009), our findings indicate that perhaps it is only women, not
men, who are doing the compromising.
Appendix
Physical Attraction
For the trait of physical attractiveness, there was a main effect
of budget, F(1, 493) ¼181.66, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.27; gender,
F(1, 493) ¼33.65, p¼.001; Z2
p¼.06; and relationship type,
F(2, 493) ¼49.28, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.17. Post hoc analyses with
the Bonferroni correction were conducted. For budget, post hoc
analyses demonstrated people spent more mate dollars on
physical attractiveness in the low budget condition (M¼
32.12, SE ¼.72) compared to the high budget condition
(M¼23.72, SE ¼.27), suggesting that this trait is considered
a necessity, p¼.001. For gender, men spent more on physical
attractiveness (M¼30.51, SE ¼.77) than did women (M¼
25.32, SE ¼.46), p¼.001. In relation to relationship type,
people spent more mate dollars on a booty-call mate’s physical
attractiveness (M¼30.41, SE ¼.87) and a short-term mate’s
physical attractiveness (M¼31.40, SE ¼.72) than they did on
physical attractiveness in long-term relationships (M¼21.94,
SE ¼.73), p¼.001 and p¼.001, respectively. In addition,
there was no significant difference between the amount of mate
dollars individuals spent on a booty-call and short-term mate’s
physical attractiveness.
Kindness
For the trait of kindness, there was a main effect of budget,
F(1, 493) ¼13.56, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.03; gender, F(1, 493) ¼
38.37, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.07; and relationship type, F(2, 493) ¼
27.43, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.10. Post hoc analyses with the Bonfer-
roni correction were conducted. For budget, post hoc analyses
demonstrated that people spent more mate dollars on kindness
in the low budget condition (M¼24.07, SE ¼.56) than they
did in the high budget condition (M¼22.34, SE ¼.30), sug-
gesting this trait is considered a necessity, p¼.001. For gender,
women spent more on kindness (M¼25.56, SE ¼.39) than did
men (M¼20.84, SE ¼.65), p¼.001. Finally, for relationship
type, people spent more mate dollars on a long-term mate’s
kindness (M¼26.48, SE ¼.62) than on a short-term mate’s
kindness (M¼20.02, SE ¼.61), p¼.001. In addition, people
spent more mate dollars on a long-term mate’s kindness com-
pared to a booty-call mate’s kindness (M¼23.12, SE ¼.74),
p¼.002. Finally, people spent significantly more mate dollars
on a booty-call mate’s kindness than a short-term mate’s kind-
ness, p¼.004.
Social Level
For social level, there was a significant main effect of budget,
F(1, 493) ¼93.16, p¼.001, Z2
p¼.16; gender, F(1, 493) ¼
4.69, p¼.031, Z2
p¼.01; and relationship term, F(2,493) ¼
6.24, p¼.002, Z2
p¼.03. Post hoc comparisons with a Bon-
ferroni adjustment were conducted. Post hoc results showed
people spent more mate dollars on social level in the high
budget condition (M¼18.59, SE ¼.31) compared to the low
budget condition (M¼14.64, SE ¼.47), p¼.001. This result
demonstrates the characteristic of social level is considered a
luxury. In addition, women spent more mate dollars on a mate’s
8Evolutionary Psychology
social level (M¼17.36, SE ¼.35) compared to men
(M¼15.87, SE ¼.59), p¼.031. Finally, people spent signif-
icantly more mate dollars on a long-term mate’s social level
(M¼18.06, SE ¼.56) than on a booty-call mate’s social level
(M¼14.98, SE ¼.67), p¼.001. No other comparisons were
significant.
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.
ORCID iD
Evita March https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3633-8815
References
Aitken, S., Lyons, M., & Jonason, P. (2013). Dads or cads? Women’s
strategic decisions in the mating game. Personality and Individual
Differences,55, 118–122. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.017
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of
gender and sexual orientation on evolutionary relevant aspects of
human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,66, 1081–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1081
Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with
benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behaviour,38, 66–73.
doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evo-
lutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences,12, 1–49. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological
Topics,15, 239–260. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/psiholo
gijske-teme
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A.,
Blanco-Willasenor, A., ...Yang, K. (1990). International
preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology,21, 5–47. doi:10.1177/
0022022190211001
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selec-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50, 559–570.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,
100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
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. doi:10.
1111/1475-6811.00018
Collins, T. J., & Horn, T. L. (2018). “I’ll call you ...” Communication
frequency as a regulator of satisfaction and commitment across
committed and casual sexual relationship types. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. doi:10.
1177/02654075187555554
Eagly, A. H., Eastwick, P. W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2009).
Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated
division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 403–414. doi:
10.1177/0146167208329696
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from
the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,46, 735–754. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.46.4.735
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in
human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Amer-
ican Psychologist,54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Evans, K., & Brase, G. L. (2007). Assessing sex differences and
similarities in mate preferences: Above and beyond demand char-
acteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,24,
781–791. doi:10.1177/0265407507081471
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power
3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,
39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attrac-
tiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research
paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59,
981–993. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.981
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human
mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences,23, 573–644. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The
hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual
Differences,28, 929–963. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869%2899%
2900151-8
Hamida, S. B., Mineka, S., & Bailey, J. M. (1998). Sex differences in
perceived controllability of mate value: An evolutionary perspec-
tive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 953–966.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.953
Hill, S. R., & Reeve, H. K. (2004). Mating games: The evolution of
human mating transactions. Behavioral Ecology,15, 748–756. doi:
10.1093/beheco/arh073
Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or
evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in
human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology,53, 194–200. Retrieved from http://www.sbpjournal
com/index.php/sbp
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. G. (1995).
Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice
guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,68, 427–440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.427
Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consen-
sus definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
42, 1407–1414. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0189-7
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The “booty call”:
A compromise between men’s and women’s ideal mating stra-
tegies. Journal of Sex Research,46, 460–470. doi:10.1080/
00224490902775827
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2011). Positioning the
booty-call relationship on the spectrum of relationships: Sexual
March et al. 9
but more emotional than one-night stands. Journal of Sex
Research,48, 486–496. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.497984
Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the
Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences,53, 180–184. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.007
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., & Li, N. P. (2012). Human mating. In
V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of human behaviour
(2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 371–377). Oxford, England: Academic Press.
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M., & Jobling, I. (2003). Proper and dark
heroes as dads and cads: Alternative mating strategies in British
romantic literature. Human Nature,14, 305–317. doi:1045-6767/
03/$1.00þ.10
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, A. A. (2002).
The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-
offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82, 947–955.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
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. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.90.3.468
Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national
study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An exam-
ination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual
Behavior,36, 193–208. doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2
March, E., & Bramwell, A. (2012). Sex differences in mate prefer-
ences in Australia: Exploring evolutionary and social-economic
theories. Journal of Relationships Research,3, 18–23. doi:10.
1017/jrr.2012.3
March, E., & Grieve, R. (2014). Sex differences and mate preferences:
Contributions and interactions of gender roles and socio-economic
status. E-Journal of Applied Psychology,10, 34–42. doi:10.7790/
sa.v10i2.410
March, E., & Grieve, R. (2015). Social-economic theory and short-
term mate preferences: The effects of gender roles and socioeco-
nomic status. Australian Journal of Psychology,68, 241–250. doi:
10.1111/ajpy.12102
March, E., Grieve, R., & Marx, E. (2014). Sex, sexual orientation, and
the necessity of physical attractiveness and social level in long-
term and short-term mates. Journal of Relationships Research,6,
1–11. doi:10.1017/jrr.2014.12
Montoya, M. R. (2005). The environment’s influence on mate prefer-
ences. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender,7, 115–134. doi:10.1080/
14616660500173339
Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). The effects of
control of resources on magnitudes of sex differences in human
mate preferences. Evolutionary Psychology,8, 720–735. Retrieved
from www.epjournal.net
Moore, F. R., & Cassidy, C. (2007). Female status predicts female
mate preferences across nonindustrial societies. Cross-Cultural
Research,41, 66–74. doi:10.1177/1069397106294860
Scheib, J. A. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s
trade-offs in the context of long-term and extra-pair mateships.
Personal Relationships,8, 371–389. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.
2001.tb00046.x
Schulte-Hostedde, A. E., Eys, M. A., & Johnson, K. (2008). Female
mate choice is influenced by male sport participation. Evolutionary
Psychology,6, 113–124. Retrieved from www.epjournal.net
Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal
dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual
Differences,39, 447–458. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023
Singer, M. C., Erickson, P. I., Badiane, L., Diaz, R., Ortiz, D.,
Abraham, T., & Nicolaysen, A. M. (2006). Syndemics, sex and
the city: Understanding sexually transmitted diseases in social and
cultural context. Social Science & Medicine,63, 2010–2021. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.05.012
Stanik, C. E., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2010). Who cares about marrying a
rich man? Intelligence and variation in women’s mate preferences.
Human Nature,21, 203–217. doi:10.1007/s12110-010-9089-x
Strout, S. L., Fisher, M. L., Kruger, D. J., & Steeleworthy, L. (2010).
Pride and prejudice or children and cheating? Jane Austen’s
representation of female mating strategies. Journal of Social,
Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology,4, 317–331. Retrieved
from http://shell.newpaltz.edu/jsec/
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Tadinac, M. (2010). Why do we all want to be young and beautiful
(and women especially)? From the evolutionary psychological
perspective. Acta Clinica Croatica,49, 501–508. Retrieved from
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/126401
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B.
Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp.
1871–1971). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2006). Niceness & dating success:
A further test of the nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles,55, 209–224.
doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2
Vigil, J. M., Geary, D. C., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2006). Trade-offs in
low-income women–s mate preferences: within-sex differences in
reproductive strategy. Human Nature,17, 319–336. doi: 10.1007/
s12110-006-1012-0
Walter, A. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of mate selection in
Morocco: A multivariate analysis. Human Nature,8, 113–137.
doi:10.1007/s12110-997-1007-5
Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too
casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships.
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,20, 75–91. Retrieved
from http://www.utpjournals.com/Canadian-Journal-of-Human-
Sexuality
Wesche, R., Claxton, S. E., Lefkowitz, E. S., & Dulman, M. H. M.
(2017). Evaluations and future plans after casual sexual experi-
ences: Differences across partner type. The Journal of Sex
Research. doi:10.1080/00224499.2017.1298714
Wiederman, M. W., & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex dif-
ferences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy
capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior,19, 153–170. doi:
10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00006-3
10 Evolutionary Psychology
