Changes in mating aspirations and mate preference following feedback cues from the opposite sex

In the process of human mate selection, individuals must often trade-off between different mate-qualities and research has suggested sex differences in the negotiability of different traits (necessities and luxuries; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). From a review of the literature it can be seen that there is also a highly dynamic relationship between an individual’s own mate-value, their mate-preferences and their mating strategy. However, there are few studies that consider all three aspects and those that do typically rely on artificially forcing one or more of these (e.g. budget allocation tasks as artificial stand-ins for mate-value or predefining the mating context). The present study aimed to assess the relative importance of a more inclusive selection of mate preferences (including preference for sexual-dimorphic aspects of the face and body) and assess sexual strategy through a measure of sociosexual orientation.;According to the mating sociometer theory (Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001), human beings are required to adaptively calibrate their mating aspirations in line with their mate-value, drawing from relevant environmental and social cues such as experiences of acceptance and rejection. By constructing a situation of mate-value relevant feedback through acceptance or rejection cues supposedly from members of the opposite sex, the present study was able to investigate the influence of mate-value relevant feedback under controlled conditions.;Results suggest that: (1) a rejection cue from members of the opposite sex is related to a decrease in overall choosiness when rating the importance of a vast selection of traits. (2) Different areas of mate-preference are affected differently by mate-value relevant feedback. Specifically, Cultivated traits, Intellectual traits, Sociable traits, Similar Ideals/Interests traits and Physical Attractiveness are rated as significantly less important by participants that have received a rejection cue compared to participants that have received an acceptance cue. (3) Although there is no difference in preference for body types or in facial coloration contrast between participants that received different types of feedback, participants that received an acceptance cue consider faces that are more masculine in shape as most attractive. (4) Mate-value relevant feedback does not seem to increase participants’ short-term mating orientation or their long-term mating orientation.