Content uploaded by Corwin Senko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Corwin Senko on Dec 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Senko, Corwin]
On:
6 November 2010
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 929204999]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t914957664
An Evolutionary Perspective on Effective vs. Ineffective Pick-up Lines
Corwin Senkoa; Viviana Fyffea
a State University of New York-New Paltz,
Online publication date: 06 November 2010
To cite this Article Senko, Corwin and Fyffe, Viviana(2010) 'An Evolutionary Perspective on Effective vs. Ineffective Pick-
up Lines', The Journal of Social Psychology, 150: 6, 648 — 667
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00224540903365539
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365539
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 150(6), 648–667
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
An Evolutionary Perspective on Effective
vs. Ineffective Pick-up Lines
CORWIN SENKO
VIVIANA FYFFE
State University of New York–New Paltz
ABSTRACT. This experiment examined women’s impressions of men using various
“pick-up” lines. Seventy women imagined being approached by a man using a flippant
and flirtatious “pick-up” line, a direct complimentary line, or an innocuous line that masks
his interest. His attractiveness varied too. They then considered him for long-term or short-
-term relationships. Matching a “good dad” hypothesis, they favored him for a long-term
relationship if he used a direct or innocuous line instead of the flippant line, because the lat-
ter conveyed lower trustworthiness and intelligence. Matching a “good genes” hypothesis,
they favored him for a short-term relationship if he was attractive instead of unattractive,
regardless of his pick-up line, presumably because attractiveness signals heritable fitness.
Limitations and theoretical implications are discussed.
Keywords: evolutionary psychology, gender issues, social perception
PEOPLE OFTEN RELY on a “pick-up” line or similar gambits to signal romantic
interest (Cunningham & Barbee, 2008). Common experience tells us that some
lines are more effective than others. This paper examines the effectiveness of
pick-up lines from an evolutionary perspective. Below, we review the guiding evo-
lutionary theories of mate selection and then apply them to the sparse literature on
pick-up lines to derive the new hypotheses tested in the current study. Throughout,
we focus on women’s judgments of men using pick-up lines, because women are
often more discriminating when selecting a partner (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and
are also more often the recipients of pick-up lines.
The authors thank Glenn Geher and Alexandra Freund for helpful comments on earlier
drafts of the manuscript, and Hannah DeRobertis, Elizabeth Steo, Sean Wilson, and Sarah
Wolfe for their assistance with data collection.
Address correspondence to Corwin Senko, State University of New York–New Paltz,
Psychology Department, 600 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561, USA; senkoc@newpaltz.
edu (e-mail).
648
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 649
Evolved Mating Strategies
Peruse the personal ads and you will find a catalogue of mate qualities
sought by women: handsome, tall, athletic build, smart, well-educated, creative,
funny, romantic, spontaneous, open-minded, kind, nurturing, family-oriented, and
so forth. Unfortunately, few men possess all of these qualities, and the ones
who do likely prefer similarly dazzling women, forcing most women to adjust
and differentiate the absolutely necessary partner attributes from the merely
desirable ones (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Li &
Kenrick, 2006). Evolutionary theories propose that women might be predisposed
to make these choices in a manner that optimizes the viability of any offspring.
Furthermore, according to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson,
2000), the attributes women prize most heavily in a partner might depend on
whether she seeks a long-term or a short-term relationship. We elaborate this
postulate below.
Due to their immense physical investment in bearing and nurturing offspring,
women might have evolved a preference for long-term relationships over multi-
ple short-term relationships (Trivers, 1972). Accordingly, women may have also
evolved the strategy to seek men who appear likely to be a “good dad” and part-
ner: that is, men who are willing to stay committed long-term to the family and
who would be capable of acquiring and providing valued resources to its devel-
opment (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Toward that end,
women may be predisposed to prioritize two broad categories of partner traits:
warmth-trustworthiness, signaled, for instance, by his honesty, reliability, kind-
ness, and nurturance; and status-resources, signaled, for instance, by his current
wealth or earning potential, intelligence, ambitiousness, dominance, and social
status. Indeed, several studies show that women seeking long-term relationships
prize these two broad qualities over many other attributes that, though highly
desirable, are ultimately less essential in a long-term partner—such as a man’s
attractiveness, romanticism, spontaneity, open-mindedness, sociability, creativity,
and sense of humor (e.g., Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Fletcher, Simpson,
Thomas, & Giles, 1999; Li & Kenrick, 2006).
Of course, women do sometimes engage in short-term mating as well. Short-
term mating may have been evolutionarily adaptive in settings where ecological
factors made long-term relationships untenable (e.g., environmental pathogens
reducing the availability of men; see Schmitt, 2005). In such cases, it would have
been profitable to seek “good genes” to pass along to the potential newborn, thus
aiding its health and viability in the absence of a long-term investment from
the father (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Women may have therefore evolved
preferences for short-term relationship partners who demonstrate “honest” sig-
nals of heritable fitness. Given the modest link between physical attractiveness
and health (Shackelford & Larsen, 1999), attractiveness may be one such signal.
This may explain why women seeking short-term mates elevate the importance of
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
650 The Journal of Social Psychology
attractiveness and diminish the importance of trustworthiness, status-resources,
romance, and other qualities that they would seek in long-term mates (Fletcher
et al., 2000; Fletcher, Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004; Gangestad
& Thornhill, 1997; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Li & Kenrick, 2006;
Scheib, 2001). Similarly, women who have greater openness toward short-term
sexual relationships tend to favor an attractive yet disloyal (i.e., untrustworthy)
man over an average-looking yet loyal man when asked to choose between the
two (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992).
In further support of this good genes hypothesis for short-term mating, sev-
eral provocative studies show that women’s partner preferences shift over their
menstrual cycle in a manner that favors healthy, attractive men during the most
fertile phase of their reproductive cycle. For example, they become more flir-
tatious with attractive men during this phase than at any other phase of their
cycle (Haselton & Gangestad, 2005). They also become more attracted during
this phase to men who exhibit masculine physical features and behaviors: for
example, highly symmetrical and masculine faces, deep voices, muscularity, and
socially dominant displays toward other men (e.g., Frederick & Haselton, 2007;
Gangestad, Garver-Apgar, Simpson, & Cousins, 2007; Gangestad & Thornhill,
1998; Penton-Voak, Perrett, Castles, Burt, Koyabashi, & Murray, 1999), all of
which are to some degree testosterone-dependent. Given that high testosterone
levels during adolescence can compromise the immune system, men must pos-
sess high immuno-competence to withstand elevated testosterone levels. Thus, it
may be that masculinity becomes more attractive during the woman’s most fertile
phase because it serves as a potential cue to the man’s heritable fitness (Gangestad
et al., 2007).
In sum, the attributes that women weigh most heavily in a potential mate
depend in part on the type of relationship being sought. Though most women
desire attractive, trustworthy, and resource-laden men, only the select few can
demand all of these qualities. Others must make trade-offs between the attributes.
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), these
trade-offs are governed by the type of relationship being sought. When seeking
a long-term partner, they should devalue attractiveness in favor of qualities in
the man that suggest a “good dad,” that is, his degree of warmth-trustworthiness
(kindness, reliability, etc.) and status-resources (earning potential, intelligence,
etc.). When seeking a short-term partner, however, they should devalue those
qualities in favor of ones that suggest “good genes,” such as attractiveness or
muscularity. These hypotheses have been supported in several studies in which
participants were asked to choose among hypothetical partners whose character
was conveyed by explicit trait descriptions (Fletcher et al., 2004), detailed biogra-
phies (Greengross & Miller, 2008; Haselton & Miller, 2006; Scheib, 2001), or
elaborately scripted behaviors (Gangestad et al., 2007). Each used a heavy and
elaborate manipulation of the man’s character. The current study contributes to
this budding literature by using a more subtle approach. It examines women’s
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 651
impressions and mate selection choices based solely on the man’s opening
“pick-up” line.
“Pick-up” Lines
The research on pick-up lines is modest yet consistent, beginning with
Kleinke, Meeker, and Staneski (1986), who examined the effectiveness of
100 pick-up lines commonly used in various settings, such as a bar, super-
market, and laundromat. Factor analyses revealed three general types of lines:
flippant lines, direct lines, and innocuous lines. Flippant lines convey interest
with humor, typically of a flirtatious and sexual nature. Examples include “You
must be tired, because you’ve been running through my mind all day,” and “The
only thing your eyes haven’t told me is your name.” Direct lines convey inter-
est with sincerity and flattery. Examples include, “It took a lot of courage to
approach you, so can I at least ask your name?” and “You seem different. I
like that.” Innocuous lines start conversations with simple questions that con-
ceal the line-user’s interest, thereby minimizing pain from potential rejection.
Examples include, “What do you think of the band?” and “I’ve seen you before.
Do you live around here?” In another study, adults estimated the likely effec-
tiveness of three versions of each type of pick-up line (Kleinke & Dean, 1990).
All of the innocuous and direct lines were judged more effective than the flip-
pant ones. Cunningham (1989) replicated this pattern in a tavern setting, where
female patrons responded more positively when the male confederate used a direct
or innocuous line instead of a flippant line. Similarly, in a pair of recent stud-
ies by Bale and colleagues, women read vignettes in which a male approached
a woman with one of a variety of opening gambits (Bale, Morrison, & Caryl,
2006; Cooper, O’Donnell, Caryl, Morrison, & Bale, 2007). They rated the flir-
tatious flippant pick-up lines the least effective. In sum, flippant pick-up lines,
so often used by men to impress women, often backfire. The precise reason for
this remains unknown, but it is likely due to the character conveyed by those
lines. Compared to direct or innocuous lines, flippant lines evidently convey
low intelligence (Cunningham, 1989) as well as several cues to low trustwor-
thiness, such as selfishness, promiscuity, and irresponsibility (Kleinke & Dean,
1990).
The research in this area has been confined to examining women’s attitudes
toward the different lines or their willingness to converse with a man using them.
It shows that flippant lines are ineffective in both respects. Strategic pluralism the-
ory suggests a likely caveat, however: a woman’s receptiveness to various lines
may depend on the type of relationship she seeks. If seeking a long-term relation-
ship, then, in accord with the “good dad” hypothesis, she should, as in the prior
studies, rebuff a man using the flippant line because it suggests untrustworthi-
ness and/or unintelligence, both undesirable characteristics in a long-term partner.
Insofar as women typically seek a long-term relationship (Buss & Schmitt, 1993),
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
652 The Journal of Social Psychology
it is likely that they approach conversation opportunities with that goal as the
default, thus explaining why the flippant line has been judged so ineffective in
the prior work. However, if instead of seeking a short-term relationship, then, in
accord with the “good genes” hypothesis, her receptiveness should hinge more
on the line-user’s attractiveness than his apparent trustworthiness or intelligence:
She should be receptive if he is attractive and non-receptive if he is unattractive,
no matter what line he uses.
Overview of Present Research
The present research tests this possibility by using the vignette approach
common in prior studies (e.g., Bale et al., 2006; Kleinke & Dean, 1990) and
validated in a Cunningham’s (1989) field study. It also examines several possi-
ble mediators for the anticipated effects of line type: specifically, perceptions of
the man’s trustworthiness, intelligence, sociability, humor and creativity. Because
warmth-trustworthiness (e.g., kindness, honesty, loyalty, potential for good par-
enting) is generally prized above all else when seeking a long-term mate (Fletcher
et al., 1999; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsehnmeier, 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006)
or any other long-standing collaborative partner (Cotrell, Neuberg, & Li, 2007),
we expect trustworthiness to be the strongest mediator for receptiveness when
considering the male target as a conversation partner or long-term partner. Yet
intelligence is also a likely secondary mediator insofar as it provides a cue to
one’s status-resources (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Fletcher et al., 2000), which is
also valued by women seeking a long-term partner. Perceptions of the man’s
sociability, humor, and creativity were also assessed for exploratory purposes
because these qualities have routinely been shown to be highly valued by women
(Cunningham, 1989; Greengross & Miller, 2008; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, &
Trost, 1990), though these attributes appear to be less essential than trustwor-
thiness and intelligence when seeking a long-term partner (Li et al., 2002). No
mediators were assessed for the good genes hypothesis, as the “healthy genes”
inference from attractiveness may be non-conscious (Gangestad & Simpson,
2000).
To summarize, four hypotheses guide this study. First, we expect to repli-
cate the scant literature on pick-up lines by showing that female participants
are less willing to engage in a conversation with the man if he uses a flippant
line instead of a direct or innocuous line. Second, we also expect this exact
pattern to be shown when participants consider him for a long-term relation-
ship. Third, each of the above effects should be mediated by perceptions that
the flippant-line user is less intelligent and/or less trustworthy than the other line
users. Fourth, when instead considering the male for a short-term relationship,
we expect that participants would be more interested in him if he is attractive
than unattractive, and that the type of line he uses will have no bearing on their
receptiveness.
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 653
Pilot Study
The prior studies on pick-up lines used two or three different lines for each
category of pick-up lines in order to demonstrate the generalizability of the
line type effects (Cunningham, 1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990). We adopted this
approach as well. However, we opted to use different pick-up lines than in pre-
vious studies for two reasons. First, the flippant lines in those past studies were
noteworthy for their lack of humor (e.g., “You remind me of someone I used to
date,” “Bet I can outdrink you”). A quick perusal of books or websites devoted
to pick-up lines, however, reveals that most flippant lines are intended to demon-
strate a sense of humor, which is well-known to be widely valued in mate selection
(Greengross & Miller, 2008; Kaufman, Kozbelt, Bromley, & Miller, 2008). We
therefore sought funnier flippant lines for the current study (cf. Bale et al., 2006).
Second, in the previous research on pick-up lines, the innocuous lines and, to a
lesser extent, the direct lines, were framed as polite questions, whereas the flippant
lines were typically framed as statements, sometimes rude ones (Cunningham,
1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990). It is possible that the apparent preference for the
direct and innocuous lines was due simply to them being framed as questions,
thus more easily allowing a response. We sought to eliminate this possible con-
found between line type and line format in the current study by using a question
format for each pick-up line. Of course, replicating those prior studies with these
new lines would remove any doubt about whether the question versus statement
format could explain past findings.
We pilot tested 30 different pick-up lines, 15 flippant ones selected from
various internet sites, and 15 non-flippant lines selected from the prior research.
Twenty-nine female university students (Mage =21.5 years, SD =3.18) rated
each on funniness and ease of response, each on 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)
scales. The nine selected lines, provided below, all scored highest (between 3–4)
on ease of response, and the three flippant lines all scored highest (above 3) on
funniness:
Flippant lines
1. Do you have any raisins? No? Well then, how about a date?
2. Can I get a picture of you so I can show Santa what I want for Christmas?
3. Shall we talk or continue flirting from a distance?
Direct lines
1. I saw you across the room and knew I had to meet you. What’s your
name?
2. Hi, I saw you and thought, ‘I’m gonna kick myself all night if I don’t at
least come over and say Hi.’ So . . . Hi. What’s your name?
3. I feel a little embarrassed about this ...butI’dliketomeetyou. What’s
your name?
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
654 The Journal of Social Psychology
Innocuous lines
1. What do you think of the band?
2. You look really familiar. Have we taken a class together?
3. Do you have the time?
Method
Overview
Female college students imagined an unknown male student initiate contact
with them by using a flippant, direct, or innocuous pick-up line. The stranger was
either attractive, unattractive, or, in the control group, non-described. They rated
him on several attributes, tapping his trustworthiness, intelligence, sociability, and
sense of humor and creativity. Then they reported their willingness to carry a
conversation, to engage in a long-term relationship, and to engage in a short-
term relationship with him. These relationship questions together comprised the
three dependent measures, while the trait attributes served as possible mediators
of any line type effects on the relationship measures. Thus, the experiment used a
3 (Line Type: flippant vs. direct vs. innocuous) x 3 (Man’s appearance: attractive
vs. unattractive vs. control) mixed design, with line type as the repeated measure.
Participants
Participants were 70 female students (Mage =21.0 years, SD =2.13) at a
northeastern university. Approximately 84% were Caucasian, 11% were Latino,
and the remaining 5% were African-American or Asian-American. Thirty par-
ticipants reported currently being involved in a long-term relationship, and 40
reported currently being single. We had no theoretical grounds for expecting
effects of participants’ ethnicity or relationship status, nor did preliminary anal-
yses indicate any effects on any of our measures. Both were therefore excluded
from all analyses presented later. Each of the attractiveness conditions had 23–24
participants.
Materials & Procedure
Participants were told that they were participating in a study about first
impressions of men using various pick-up lines. The experimenter gave each par-
ticipant a packet of three questionnaires, asked them to complete the packet at
their own pace, and assured them of the confidentiality of their responses. The
questionnaire packet’s cover sheet instructed participants to imagine the following
scenario: “As you are enjoying a night out at a campus event, you are approached
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 655
by a male student. You can tell he is interested in beginning a conversation with
you.” In the Attractive condition, they were told to imagine that “You find this
stranger very attractive.” In the Unattractive condition, they were told to imagine
that “You find this stranger unattractive.” No mention of his attractiveness was
made in the control group.1The cover sheet then explained that the packet con-
tained three similar questionnaires, each beginning with a pick-up line that she
should imagine was being used by the male stranger.
The three questionnaires were identical except that one gave the flippant line,
another the direct line, and another the innocuous line. The order of the three line
types was counterbalanced. As described above, we used three versions of each
line. The version of lines was divided equally among participants.
Beneath the pick-up line, each questionnaire asked participants to evalu-
atethetargetonseveraldesirabletraitattributesinamateona1(“Notat
all”) to 7 (“Extremely”) Likert-type scale. These included his Trustworthiness
(“trustworthy,” “kind,” “honest,” “reliable,” “likely to be a good parent”; αval-
ues across the three types of pick-up lines ranged from .88 – .92), taken from
Fletcher et al.’s (1999) measure of warmth-trustworthiness, as well as the man’s
Intelligence (“intelligent” and “smart”; αrange =.81 – .86), Sociability (“socia-
ble”, “friendly”, and “confident”; αrange =.70 – .80), and Humor (“funny” and
“creative”; αrange =.80 – .88). Each questionnaire concluded with the following
paragraph defining different relationships types:
There are many different types of relationships one can engage in with another per-
son. For the purposes of this study, we are considering a long-term relationship as a
committed relationship lasting for at least a few months. Short-term relationships can
be either a “hook-up” or a brief sexual fling.
After reading this paragraph, participants completed the three dependent vari-
able measures, each assessed with a single-item on the same 1–7 scale as above:
“How likely is it that you would carry on a conversation with him?”; “If you were
interested in a short-term relationship, to what degree would you consider this
person?”; and “If you were interested in a long-term relationship, to what degree
would you consider this person?”2
Results
Line Version Analysis
As in the past studies, this study used three flippant lines, three direct lines,
and three innocuous lines in order to demonstrate the generalizability of effects
across different exemplars of each line type. A preliminary line type X line ver-
sion MANOVA therefore tested the line version effects on the three dependent
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
656 The Journal of Social Psychology
measures (willingness to converse, to consider the man for a long-term relation-
ship, and to consider the man for a short-term relationship) for each of the types
of lines. The omnibus effect of line version was non-significant, Pillai’s F(18,
120) =1.74, p>.05, as were all of the univariate effects. This indicates that the
different exemplars of each line led to consistent results. Therefore, in the main
analyses, we averaged across the three versions for each of the types of lines.
Main Analyses
The three dependent measures were each analyzed witha3(LineType:
flippant vs. direct vs. innocuous) X 3 (Attractiveness Level: Attractive vs.
Unattractive vs. Control) mixed ANOVA, with Line Type as the repeated
measure. The assumption of sphericity was satisfied in each analysis. Bonferroni
post-hoc tests (α=.05) were used to probe all significant effects. Table 1
provides the ANOVA results and condition means for each dependent measure;
means for all significant main effects are reported below.
Conversation and long-term relationship effects. Significant main effects of line
type supported our hypotheses concerning participants’ willingness to converse
with the male stranger and willingness to consider him for a long-term rela-
tionship. As expected, participants were less willing to converse with the male
target if he used a flippant line (M=2.71, SD =1.52) than if he used a direct
(M=4.01, SD =1.56) or innocuous line (M=3.69, SD =1.54). They were
also, as expected, less willing to consider the man for a long-term relationship if
he used a flippant line (M=2.13, SD =1.49) than if he used a direct (M=3.57,
SD =1.77) or innocuous line (M=2.99, SD =1.66). For both dependent mea-
sures, non-significant line X attractiveness interaction effects indicate that these
patterns were shown in all three of the attractiveness conditions.
However, the attractiveness manipulation did produce significant main effects
on both dependent measures. Participants were more willing to converse with the
target if he was attractive (M=3.88, SD =1.69) than if he was unattractive
(M=3.16, SD =1.37), with neither group differing from the control group where
his appearance was unstated (M=3.38, SD =1.49). They were also marginally
more willing to consider him for a long-term relationship if he was attractive
(M=3.36, SD =1.80) than if he was unattractive (M=2.47, SD =1.38), with
neither group differing from the control group (M=2.99, SD =1.64).
Short-term relationship effects. The results also supported our hypothesis con-
cerning participants’ receptiveness to the man for a short-term relationship. As
expected, participants’ receptiveness hinged on his attractiveness, not the type of
line he used. They were less interested in a short-term relationship with the male
if he was unattractive (M=2.64, SD =1.89) than if he was attractive (M=3.70,
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 657
TABLE 1. Means (SD) and ANOVA Results for Willingness to Consider the
Male for Conversation, a Long-Term Relationship, and a Short-Term
Relationship
Attractiveness condition
Flippant
line Direct line
Innocuous
line
Willingness to Carry On a Conversation
Attractive Line-User 3.09 (1.62) 4.39 (1.78) 4.17 (1.69)
Unattractive Line-User 2.48 (1.28) 3.78 (1.35) 3.22 (1.45)
No Description (Control) 2.58 (1.61) 3.88 (1.51) 3.67 (1.37)
FLine Type (2, 134) =14.14, p<.01, η2=.17
FAttractiveness (2, 67) =3.88, p<.05, η2=.10
FLine X Att (4, 134) =0.143, p>.05, η2=.01
Willingness to Consider a Long-Term Relationship
Attractive Line-User 2.52 (1.84) 4.00 (1.91) 3.26 (1.66)
Unattractive Line-User 1.75 (1.07) 3.17 (1.63) 2.50 (1.45)
No Description (Control) 2.08 (1.41) 3.63 (1.72) 3.25 (1.78)
FLine Type (2, 136) =18.41, p<.001, η2=.21
FAttractiveness (2, 68) =3.12, p=.05, η2=.08
FLine X Att (4, 136) =0.19, p>.05, η2=.01
Willingness to Consider a Short-Term Relationship
Attractive Line-User 3.35 (2.15) 3.86 (1.84) 3.61 (1.69)
Unattractive Line-User 2.33 (1.49) 2.85 (0.99) 2.46 (1.02)
No Description (Control) 3.50 (2.28) 3.88 (1.48) 3.71 (1.68)
FLine Type (2, 136) =2.60, p>.05, η2=.04
FAttractiveness (2, 68) =6.38, p<.01, η2=.16
FLine X Att (4, 136) =0.24, p>.05, η2=.01
Note.N=70. All measures range from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“extremely”).
SD =1.17) or if his attractiveness was unknown (M=3.70, SD =1.81). The type
of line he used did not influence their judgments in any way.
Mediation Analyses
We expected that the target’s apparent trustworthiness and/or intelligence
would mediate the effect of line type on participants’ willingness to converse with
him or to engage in a long-term relationship with him. Therefore, we next ana-
lyzed the effects of line type and attractiveness on these two traits as well as his
apparent sociability and sense of humor. Table 2 provides the condition means
and mixed ANOVA results for each trait. Bonferroni post-hoc tests (α=.05)
were used to probe all effects. The attractiveness main effect and the line X
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
658 The Journal of Social Psychology
TABLE 2. Means (SD) and ANOVA Results for Ratings of the Line-User’s
Trustworthiness, Intelligence, Sociability, and Sense of Humor
Attractiveness condition
Flippant
line Direct line
Innocuous
line
Line-User’s Trustworthiness
Attractive Line-User 2.94 (1.39) 3.98 (1.48) 3.35 (1.06)
Unattractive Line-User 2.59 (0.89) 4.12 (0.93) 3.54 (0.92)
No Description (Control) 2.75 (1.20) 4.21 (1.13) 3.80 (0.79)
FLine Type (2, 136) =33.60, p<.001, η2=.33
FAttractiveness (2, 68) =0.37, p>.05, η2=.01
FLine X Att (4, 136) =0.81, p>.05, η2=.02
Line-User’s Intelligence
Attractive Line-User 2.98 (1.56) 4.02 (1.58) 3.74 (1.17)
Unattractive Line-User 2.83 (1.12) 4.21 (1.08) 3.79 (1.08)
No Description (Control) 2.94 (1.69) 4.13 (1.01) 3.85 (1.05)
FLine Type (2, 136) =19.62, p<.001, η2=.22
FAttractiveness (2, 68) =0.03, p>.05, η2=.00
FLine X Att (4, 136) =0.13, p>.05, η2=.01
Line-User’s Sociability
Attractive Line-User 5.01 (1.37) 4.99 (1.40) 4.75 (1.04)
Unattractive Line-User 4.94 (0.87) 4.73 (1.21) 4.06 (1.03)
No Description (Control) 5.64 (1.51) 4.88 (1.29) 4.40 (0.99)
FLine Type (2, 136) =6.46, p<.01, η2=.09
FAttractiveness (2, 68) =0.94, p>.05, η2=.03
FLine X Att (4, 136) =0.62, p>.05, η2=.02
Line-User’s Sense of Humor
Attractive Line-User 4.20 (1.69) 3.59 (1.32) 3.70 (1.38)
Unattractive Line-User 4.21 (1.62) 3.52 (1.65) 3.85 (1.10)
No Description (Control) 4.17 (2.05) 3.58 (1.43) 3.11 (1.21)
FLine Type (2, 136) =8.57, p<.001, η2=.13
FAttractiveness (2, 68) =0.67, p>.05, η2=.02
FLine X Att (4, 136) =0.69, p>.05, η2=.02
Note.N=70. All measures range from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“extremely”).
attractiveness interaction were both non-significant in each analysis, thus show-
ing that attractiveness had no effect on judgments of the man’s traits. However,
the type of pick-up line did affect participants’ perceptions of the degree to which
the fictional man had each trait.
As hypothesized, participants judged the fictional man less trustworthy if he
used a flippant line (M=2.76, SD =1.17) than if he used a direct (M=4.66,
SD =1.19) or innocuous line (M=4.11, SD =0.94). They also rated him less
intelligent if he used a flippant line (M=2.92, SD =1.47) than if he used a direct
(M=4.12, SD =1.24) or innocuous line (M=3.80, SD =1.07). These results
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 659
mirrored the effects on willingness to converse and consider a long-term relation-
ship with the male, making each trait a viable mediator of those effects. Line type
also affected participants’ views of the man’s sociability, but in a manner differ-
ent from their views of his trustworthiness and intelligence. Participants judged
the man less sociable if he used an innocuous line (M=4.39, SD =1.03) than
if he used a flippant line (M=5.00, SD =1.27) or direct line (M=4.86, SD
=1.29). They also considered him funnier if he used a flippant line (M=4.19,
SD =1.78) than if he used a direct (M=3.56, SD =1.29) or innocuous line
(M=3.21, SD =1.28). These effects do not match the effects on our dependent
measures, thus ruling each out as viable mediators of those effects.
We next tested the third element required for mediation: Do the potential
mediators (trustworthiness and intelligence) predict the dependent variables (con-
versation and long-term relationship consideration) and reduce the effect of the
independent variable (line type)? Because our line type manipulation is within-
subjects, we followed the guidelines of Judd, Kenny, and McClelland (2001) for
testing mediation in within-subjects and mixed designs. Their approach requires
creating two contrast codes to capture comparisons between the three line type
conditions. The first contrast, Flippant-Others, is the main one of interest. It com-
pared the flippant line (−2) with the direct (+1) and innocuous (+1) lines. The
second contrast, Direct-Innocuous, compared the direct (+1) line with the innocu-
ous line. These contrast codes must be created for the dependent measure(s) and
the proposed mediator(s) alike. Finally, for each mediator, values in each con-
dition are summed into a total score (i.e., TrustworthinessFlippant+dDirect+Innocuous
and IntelligenceFlippant+Direct+Innocuous). Mediation is revealed in regression analy-
ses when the focal contrast for the mediator (i.e., TrustworthinessFlippant-Others or
IntelligenceFlippant-Others) significantly predicts the same contrast for the dependent
measure (i.e., ConversationFlippant-Others or Long-Term RelationshipFlippant-Others ),
with the regression constant and sum scores for these mediators all being
non-significant.
Regression analyses of the willingness to converse dependent measure
revealed mediation. The Flippant-Other contrasts for trustworthiness and intelli-
gence each significantly predicted the same contrast for willingness to converse
with the male target, F(1, 63) =20.13, p<.001, ß=.49, and F(1, 63) =13.42,
p<.01, ß=.43, respectively, while the Direct-Innocuous contrast codes for each
mediator, the sum scores for each mediator, and the regression constant were
all non-significant. The identical pattern was shown in regression analyses of
the long-term relationship dependent measure. Once again, the Flippant-Others
contrasts for trustworthiness and intelligence both significantly predicted the
same contrast for the dependent measure, F(1, 63) =27.58, p<.001, ß=.55,
and F(1, 63) =5.91, p<.05, ß=.39, respectively, while the regression constant
and other terms were non-significant. Thus, it appears that participants were less
willing to converse with the flippant line-user and were less willing to consider
him for a long-term relationship, because his flippant line made him appear
relatively untrustworthy and unintellingent.
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
660 The Journal of Social Psychology
Discussion
Previous studies have shown that women are less willing to converse with
men who use flippant lines than those who use direct or innocuous lines
(Cunningham, 1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990; Kleinke et al., 1986). The current
study did as well. It also extends the prior work by testing hypotheses derived from
the evolutionary-based strategic pluralism theory of mate selection (Gangestad &
Simpson, 2000).
Consider first the women’s responses to the man when contemplating a
long-term relationship. In this context, just like when deciding whether to con-
verse with the man, they were much less receptive if he used a flippant pick-up
line instead of a direct or innocuous line. The trait analyses help explain this
finding. In accordance with previous work by Cunningham (1989) and Klienke
and Dean (1990), the male was judged more sociable, more confident, and fun-
nier when using the flippant line than when using the other lines, but also less
trustworthy and less intelligent.3Women often desire each of these traits in a
long-term mate (e.g., Kenrick et al., 1990), but as Li and colleagues have shown,
when forced to choose, women rate the latter qualities more essential than the
former ones in a long-term mate (Cottrell et al., 2007; Li et al., 2002; Li &
Kenrick, 2006). This is evident in our mediation analyses as well: Participants’
disinterest in the flippant line-user as a long-term mate traced directly to their
belief that he was untrustworthy and unintelligent. Thus, consistent with the
good dad hypothesis, when it comes to long-term mate selection, it appears that
trustworthiness and intelligence were necessities, sociability and humor merely
luxuries.
A different pattern of findings emerged when women were asked to consider a
short-term relationship. In this context, in accord with the good genes hypothesis,
women’s receptiveness to the man hinged on his attractiveness, not his choice of
pick-up lines or the traits conveyed by these lines. Regardless of what line he
used, participants were much less receptive to him if he was unattractive than if
he was attractive or left un-described.
Alternative Interpretations and Limitations
The principle findings strongly support the good dad model of women’s mate
selection for long-term relationships and the good genes model of mate selection
for short-term relationships. The attractiveness findings warrant closer inspection,
however. Women were more willing to consider a conversation, a long-term rela-
tionship, or a short-term relationship with the man if he was attractive instead of
unattractive. This effect’s consistency across all three relationship contexts raises
the possibility that the “beautiful is good” halo effect guided participants’ judg-
ments of the target male (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). That is, perhaps
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 661
participants assumed the physically attractive man also had a more attractive per-
sonality than the physically unattractive man. If true, then their preference for the
attractive man as a short-term partner might actually have nothing to do with his
genetic quality. Fortunately, the trait analyses allow a direct test of this alternative
explanation of our findings. If the beautiful is good stereotype were responsible
for the effects, then there should have been similar attractiveness main effects
on beliefs about the man’s trustworthiness, intelligence, sociability, and humor.
Those effects were all non-significant, however, thus refuting this alternative to
the good genes hypothesis.
Why then did attractiveness exert a strong effect across all three contexts?
Perhaps this pattern reflects how attractiveness is highly valued in the ideal mate
(Gangestad et al., 2007; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Regan, 1998). Had participants been
forced to choose between attractiveness and trustworthiness (as indicated by his
choice of lines), we suspect that they would have favored trustworthiness in the
long-term relationship context and attractiveness in the short-term mating con-
text, as has been found in other studies using the forced-choice procedure (e.g.,
Fletcher et al., 2004; Scheib, 2001).
Several possible methodological limitations are worth considering as well.
One is the study’s ecological validity. Our study relied on hypothetical scenarios
instead of real interactions with the stranger. Would the results have been similar
if women had actually been approached by the male stranger using one of these
lines? Fortunately, Cunningham (1989) found similar findings using that exact
approach. In his study, a male experimenter approached young female patrons at a
bar. As in our study and others using the vignette method (Kleinke & Dean, 1990;
Kleinke et al., 1986), his participants were more receptive to the man if he used a
direct or innocuous line instead of a flippant line: they smiled more, made more
eye contact, and responded with greater friendliness. Although Cunningham’s and
Kleinke’s studies did not examine short-term and long-term mating contexts, their
convergence with our “willingness to converse” findings provides confidence in
the vignette methodology used in this study.
This of course is not to suggest that the man’s pick-up line renders other
cues to his character and mate quality irrelevant. His vocal quality, peer groups,
fashion, and sundry other characteristics may also influence impression-formation
in real-world settings. Rather, the key value of the converging set of findings
across different methodologies is their demonstration that opening verbal gam-
bits do provide useful clues during the initial mate selection process. Whether
these clues are valid is another matter. Person perception research shows that
women can infer strangers’ personalities and intelligence with noteworthy accu-
racy (Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007). Insofar as word choices indicate features
of one’s personality (Fast & Funder, 2008), it is plausible that women would
make reasonably accurate character inferences based on men’s pick-up lines. In
our view, however, the accuracy of these judgments is less important than the
impact these judgments have on women’s consideration of long-term relationship
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
662 The Journal of Social Psychology
partners. In particular, from an evolutionary perspective, women should favor
a risk-avoidance strategy during long-term mate selection because of their high
personal investment in the creation and bearing of potential offspring (Haselton
& Buss, 2000). Thus, it may have been evolutionarily beneficial for women to
develop a hyper-vigilance for unsavory character traits and sexual intentions—
conveyed, for example, through his use of flippant pick-up lines – even if those
initial perceptions are inaccurate.
Another possible limitation is that the current findings are unique to the par-
ticular lines we chose. We consider this possibility remote for several reasons.
First, Kleinke et al. (1986) found that over 100 commonly used lines were eas-
ily classified with factor analysis into the three basic types, thus testifying to the
typology’s generalizability. Furthermore, across all of those lines, their female
participants clearly favored the direct and innocuous ones over the flippant lines.
Second, we used three versions of the flippant lines, direct lines, and innocuous
lines, and still found the same basic effect regardless of the versions. Third, our
findings for willingness to converse replicate the past three studies (Cunningham,
1989; Kleinke & Dean, 1990; Kleinke et al., 1986), despite all of these studies
using different flippant, direct, and innocuous lines. There is good reason, there-
fore, to expect that the current findings would generalize to other examples of
these three line types. This of course is not to suggest that all flippant lines are
necessarily ineffective; one could presumably be made effective if crafted in a
way that conveys trustworthiness. Nor is it to say that a direct line would always
be effective; one could be rendered ineffective if crafted in a way that conveys
rudeness or stupidity. Rather, the point is that these lines do nevertheless tend
to offer predictable and useful cues to the line-user’s character, and that this in
turn allows quick judgments of his desirability as a mate for different types of
relationships (see also Bale et al., 2006).
Theoretical Implications and Research Directions
This study offers several theoretical contributions and research directions
to consider. First, much research during the past 15–20 years has demonstrated
how mate selection strategies influence judgments of another’s appearance and
other qualities. Strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000) proposes
that these judgments depend on whether one is assessing potential mates for a
long-term relationship or instead for a short-term relationship. Little work has
tested this theory within the context of immediate assessments of potential mates
based on minimal information about the man’s character. The current studies pro-
vide such a test and show that the theory’s principles may even affect women’s
willingness to even converse with a man who shows interest in them.
The current findings have implications for recent theorizing about the role of
perceived intelligence in mate selection. Theorists have long posited that intel-
ligence is prized by women seeking a long-term relationship because it signals
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 663
the man’s likely capability to acquire needed status-resources to provide for the
family (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). More recently, theorists have proposed that intel-
ligence should also be valued in short-term mates to the extent that it is a heritable
fitness trait (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Gangestad et al., 2007; Haselton & Miller,
2006). Thus, in theory, intelligence might be appealing to women no matter what
type of relationship is being sought. However, the research to date has more
strongly demonstrated the importance of perceived intelligence for long-term
mate selection than for short-term mate selection, which appears at this point to
be influenced most by attractiveness and masculinity displays that signal heritable
fitness (Buss & Gangestad et al., 2007; Prokosch, Coss, Scheib, & Blozis, 2009).
Our findings are consistent with this emerging pattern: the flippant line, despite
conveying low intelligence, did not influence women’s judgments of the man’s
desirability as a short-term relationship partner. Only his attractiveness mattered
in this relationship context.
Similarly, the findings speak to recent theorizing about humor’s role in mate
selection. People often list humor as highly desirable in a long-term mate (e.g.,
Bressler & Balshine, 2006; Kenrick et al., 1990; Sprecher & Regan, 2002), and
this is likely why men so often rely on flippant lines to meet women. According
to Miller and colleagues’ mating mind hypothesis, humor is attractive because it
signals creative intelligence, a heritable trait that should be valuable both in long-
term and short-term mating (Haselton & Miller, 2006; Geher & Miller, 2008;
Kaufman et al., 2008). Our findings seem in some respects to oppose their hypoth-
esis: Although women rated the flippant line-user funnier and more creative than
the direct and innocuous line-users, they also judged him less intelligent and less
desirable. Other studies have shown an inverse relationship between perceived
humor and perceived intelligence as well (Bale et al., 2007; Bressler & Balshine,
2006). However, in those studies and ours, the humor took the form of canned
one-liners. Most likely, humor must take the form of spontaneous wit, consis-
tently demonstrated, if it is to provide an honest signal of heritable intelligence.
That form of humor would most likely have much stronger appeal to women than
the flippant pick-up lines and other canned jokes that men often use to impress
women. Future research on the mating mind hypothesis is needed to directly
compare the effects of canned versus spontaneous humor.
Of course, it should be noted that mating strategies principles were simply
used as a guiding framework; they were not all tested fully. For example, like most
studies using a “good genes” framework to assess mate preferences in a short-
term relationship context (e.g., Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997; Li & Kenrick, 2006;
Scheib, 2001), the current study could not directly assess whether the preference
for an attractive partner in this context traces to an evolved link between attrac-
tiveness and health. Other studies have shown that people with attractive faces
(i.e., symmetrical faces) are perceived to be healthy (Rhodes, Zebrowitz, Clark,
& Kalick, 2001). However, as noted by Weeden and Sabini (2005), the evidence
linking attractiveness to actual health is mixed, with most studies showing modest
or null relationships (e.g., Shackelford & Larsen, 1997, 1999; Soler, et al., 2003).
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
664 The Journal of Social Psychology
Perhaps, then, there is another reason, unrelated to phenotypic quality, for why
women weigh attractiveness so heavily when considering mates for short-term
relationships. This remains an important issue for future research on the good
genes hypothesis.
Additionally, it could be fruitful for future research to examine those char-
acteristics of the line-recipient that might moderate the effects shown here.
One candidate is the women’s sociosexuality (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992).
Women with an “unrestricted” sociosexuality orientation tend to be more open to
short-term relationships than women with a “restricted” orientation. Unrestricted
women might respond more favorably than the restricted women to the flirta-
tious flippant line, perhaps especially when considering a short-term relationship.
A second possible moderator concerns the woman’s reproductive cycle. Insofar
as women are more receptive to short-term mating and more keen on mascu-
line displays during the most fertile phase of their cycle (Gangestad et al., 2007;
Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, Garver-Apgar, & Christensen, 2004; Penton-Voak
et al., 1999), perhaps they also would be more receptive to the bold and sexu-
ally charged flippant line at that point. Additional studies could test these and
other moderators to help specify when and why some opening gambits are more
successful than others.
NOTES
1. It is conceivable that some participants would define “attractiveness” in terms of personality
instead of physical features. Yet this possibility seems remote because the scenario concerns a stranger
at a campus event, and it would be disproved if the attractiveness manipulation has null effects on the
trait attributions.
2. Answering the long-term relationship question could create pressure to remain consistent
when answering the other two questions. For example, if participants reported relatively high will-
ingness to consider a long-term relationship, then they might feel compelled to report equally high
willingness to consider a conversation. This consistency pressure seemed less likely if the conversation
item came first, as there is a large psychological gap between conversing and entering a relationship.
We therefore presented the three questions to all participants in this order: conversation, short-term
relationship, long-term relationship.
3. Our mediation results dovetail with Klienke and Dean’s (1990) finding that flippant lines
conveyed irresponsibility, selfishness, and promiscuity, all of which are cues to low trustworthiness
(Fletcher et al., 1999). Both ours and theirs, however, depart somewhat from Cunningham’s (1989)
results, which showed that sociability not trustworthiness, was, along with intelligence, the principle
trait that women consider when deciding whether to converse with the male line-user. This difference
might trace to the choice of different flippant lines used in the studies: ours (“Shall we talk? Or
continue flirting from a distance?”) and Kleinke and Dean’s (e.g., “I’m easy, are you?”) are more
sexual than Cunningham’s (e.g., “Bet I can outdrink you”). Perhaps it is the flirtatious and sexual
undertone, so common in flippant pick-up lines, that triggers apprehension about the man’s intentions
and trustworthiness, thus elevating its prominence in our findings.
AUTHOR NOTES
Corwin Senko is affiliated with Department of Psychology at the State
University of New York–New Paltz. Viviana Fyffe is affiliated with Department
of Psychology at the State University of New York–New Paltz.
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 665
REFERENCES
Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays.
Personality and Individual Differences,40, 655–664.
Bressler & Balshine (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and Human
Behavior,27, 121–130.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective
on human mating. Psychological Review,100, 204–232.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes,
economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary
Psychology,6, 134–146.
Carney, D. R., Colvin, R., & Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of
first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality,41, 1054–1072.
Cooper, O’Donnell, Caryl, Morrison, & Bale, 2007. Chat-up lines as male displays: Effects
of content, sex, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences,43, 1075–1085.
Cotrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others?
A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,92, 208–231.
Cunningham, M. R. (1989). Reactions to heterosexual gambits: Female selectivity and
male responsiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,15, 27–41.
Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2008). Prelude to a kiss: Nonverbal flirting, opening
gambits, and other communication dynamics in the initiation of romantic relationships.
In S. Sprecher, A. Wentzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp.
97–120). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dion, K.K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,24, 285–290.
Fast, L. A., & Funder, D. C. (2008). Personality as manifest in word use: Correlations
with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,94, 334–346.
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations
in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79,
933–940
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 72–89.
Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., Overall, N. (2004). Warm and
homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 659–672.
Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M.G. (2007).Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness
indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33, 1167–1183.
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C.E., Simpson, J.A., & Cousins, A.J. (2007). Changes in
women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,92, 151–163.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs
and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,23, 573–644.
Gangestad, S.W., Simpson, J.A., Cousins, A.J., Garver-Apgar, C.E., & Christensen, P.N.
(2004). Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual
cycle. Psychological Science,15, 203–207.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex:
The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior,18, 69–88.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preference
for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B,262,
727–733.
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
666 The Journal of Social Psychology
Geher, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s
reproductive system. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects
of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of
self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology,6, 393–408.
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D.M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on
biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78,
81–91.
Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S.W. (2005). Conditional expression of women’s desires
and men’s mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior,49,
509–518.
Haselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the
short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature,17, 50–73.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation
and moderation in within-subjects designs. Psychological Methods,6, 115–134.
Kaufman, S. B., Kozbelt, A., Bromley, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (2008). The role of creativ-
ity and humor in mate selection. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence:
Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 227–262). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and stages
of human courtship qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality,58,
97–117.
Kleinke, C. L. & Dean, G. O. (1990). Evaluation of men and women receiving positive and
negative responses with various acquaintance strategies. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality,5, 369–377.
Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines:
Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles,15, 585–599.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and
luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,82, 947–955.
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.
Penton-Voak, I.S., Perrett, D.I., Castles, D., Burt, M., Koyabashi, T., & Murray, L.K.
(1999). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature,399, 741–742.
Prokosch, M.D., Coss, R.G., Scheib, J.E. & Blozis, S.A. (2009). Intelligence and
mate choice: Intelligent men are always appealing. Evolution & Human Behavior,
30, 11–20.
Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise
ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 1294–1303.
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark A., & Kalick, S. M. (2001). Do facial averageness and
symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior,22, 31–46.
Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Trade-offs in the contexts of
long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships,84, 371–389.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Is short-term mating the maladaptive result of insecure attach-
ment? A test of competing evolutionary perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,31, 747–768.
Shackelford, T.K., & Larsen, R.J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychologi-
cal, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 56–466.
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
Senko & Fyffe 667
Shackelford, T.K., & Larsen, R.J. (1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health.
Evolution and Human Behavior,20, 71–76.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice.
Journal of Personality,60, 31–51.
Soler, C., Núñez, M., Gutiérrez, R., Núñez, J., Medina, P., Sancho, M., et al. (2003). Facial
attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution and Human Behavior,
24, 199–207.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than oth-
ers: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships,19, 463–481.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual
selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in western societies:
Areview.Psychological Bulletin,131, 635–653.
Received January 10, 2009
Accepted May 11, 2009
Downloaded By: [Senko, Corwin] At: 15:06 6 November 2010
