scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Daniel Conroy-Beam

Other affiliations: University of Texas at Austin
Bio: Daniel Conroy-Beam is an academic researcher from University of California, Santa Barbara. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mate choice & Evolutionary psychology. The author has an hindex of 15, co-authored 26 publications receiving 2651 citations. Previous affiliations of Daniel Conroy-Beam include University of Texas at Austin.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel Conroy-Beam1, David M. Buss2, Kelly Asao2, Agnieszka Sorokowska3, Agnieszka Sorokowska4, Piotr Sorokowski4, Toivo Aavik5, Grace Akello6, Mohammad Madallh Alhabahba7, Charlotte Alm8, Naumana Amjad9, Afifa Anjum9, Chiemezie S. Atama10, Derya Atamtürk Duyar11, Richard Ayebare, Carlota Batres12, Mons Bendixen13, Aicha Bensafia14, Boris Bizumic15, Mahmoud Boussena14, Marina Butovskaya16, Marina Butovskaya17, Seda Can18, Katarzyna Cantarero19, Antonin Carrier20, Hakan Cetinkaya21, Ilona Croy3, Rosa María Cueto22, Marcin Czub4, Daria Dronova16, Seda Dural18, İzzet Duyar11, Berna Ertuğrul23, Agustín Espinosa22, Ignacio Estevan24, Carla Sofia Esteves25, Luxi Fang26, Tomasz Frackowiak4, Jorge Contreras Garduño27, Karina Ugalde González, Farida Guemaz, Petra Gyuris28, Mária Halamová29, Iskra Herak20, Marina Horvat30, Ivana Hromatko31, Chin Ming Hui26, Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar32, Feng Jiang33, Konstantinos Kafetsios34, Tina Kavčič35, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair13, Nicolas Kervyn20, Truong Thi Khanh Ha19, Imran Ahmed Khilji36, Nils C. Köbis37, Hoang Moc Lan19, András Láng28, Georgina R. Lennard15, Ernesto León22, Torun Lindholm8, Trinh Thi Linh19, Giulia Lopez38, Nguyen Van Luot19, Alvaro Mailhos24, Zoi Manesi39, Rocio Martinez40, Sarah L. McKerchar15, Norbert Meskó28, Girishwar Misra41, Conal Monaghan15, Emanuel C. Mora42, Alba Moya-Garófano40, Bojan Musil30, Jean Carlos Natividade43, Agnieszka Niemczyk4, George Nizharadze, Elisabeth Oberzaucher44, Anna Oleszkiewicz4, Anna Oleszkiewicz3, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee45, Ike E. Onyishi10, Barış Özener11, Ariela Francesca Pagani38, Vilmante Pakalniskiene46, Miriam Parise38, Farid Pazhoohi47, Annette Pisanski42, Katarzyna Pisanski48, Katarzyna Pisanski4, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano, Camelia Popa49, Pavol Prokop50, Pavol Prokop51, Muhammad Rizwan, Mario Sainz52, Svjetlana Salkičević31, Ruta Sargautyte46, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller53, Susanne Schmehl44, Shivantika Sharad41, Razi Sultan Siddiqui54, Franco Simonetti55, Stanislava Stoyanova56, Meri Tadinac31, Marco Antonio Correa Varella57, Christin-Melanie Vauclair25, Luis Diego Vega, Dwi Ajeng Widarini, Gyesook Yoo58, Marta Zaťková29, Maja Zupančič59 
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, Dresden University of Technology3, University of Wrocław4, University of Tartu5, Gulu University6, Middle East University7, Stockholm University8, University of the Punjab9, University of Nigeria, Nsukka10, Istanbul University11, Franklin & Marshall College12, Norwegian University of Science and Technology13, University of Algiers14, Australian National University15, Russian Academy of Sciences16, Russian State University for the Humanities17, İzmir University of Economics18, University of Social Sciences and Humanities19, Université catholique de Louvain20, Ankara University21, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru22, Cumhuriyet University23, University of the Republic24, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon25, The Chinese University of Hong Kong26, National Autonomous University of Mexico27, University of Pécs28, University of Constantine the Philosopher29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology36, University of Amsterdam37, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart38, VU University Amsterdam39, University of Granada40, University of Delhi41, University of Havana42, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro43, University of Vienna44, Universiti Utara Malaysia45, Vilnius University46, University of British Columbia47, University of Sussex48, Romanian Academy49, Slovak Academy of Sciences50, Comenius University in Bratislava51, University of Monterrey52, SAS Institute53, DHA Suffa University54, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile55, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"56, University of São Paulo57, Kyung Hee University58, University of Ljubljana59
TL;DR: This work combines this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets and finds that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
Abstract: Humans express a wide array of ideal mate preferences. Around the world, people desire romantic partners who are intelligent, healthy, kind, physically attractive, wealthy, and more. In order for these ideal preferences to guide the choice of actual romantic partners, human mating psychology must possess a means to integrate information across these many preference dimensions into summaries of the overall mate value of their potential mates. Here we explore the computational design of this mate preference integration process using a large sample of n = 14,487 people from 45 countries around the world. We combine this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets. Across cultures, people higher in mate value appear to experience greater power of choice on the mating market in that they set higher ideal standards, better fulfill their preferences in choice, and pair with higher mate value partners. Furthermore, we find that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.

1,827 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Evolutionary approaches to the emotions have traditionally focused on a subset of emotions that are shared with other species, characterized by distinct signals, and designed to solve a few key ada as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Evolutionary approaches to the emotions have traditionally focused on a subset of emotions that are shared with other species, characterized by distinct signals, and designed to solve a few key ada

152 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Kathryn V. Walter1, Daniel Conroy-Beam1, David M. Buss2, Kelly Asao2, Agnieszka Sorokowska3, Agnieszka Sorokowska4, Piotr Sorokowski5, Toivo Aavik6, Grace Akello7, Mohammad Madallh Alhabahba8, Charlotte Alm9, Naumana Amjad10, Afifa Anjum10, Chiemezie S. Atama11, Derya Atamtürk Duyar12, Richard Ayebare, Carlota Batres13, Mons Bendixen14, Aicha Bensafia15, Boris Bizumic16, Mahmoud Boussena15, Marina Butovskaya17, Marina Butovskaya18, Seda Can19, Katarzyna Cantarero20, Antonin Carrier21, Hakan Cetinkaya22, Ilona Croy4, Rosa María Cueto23, Marcin Czub3, Daria Dronova17, Seda Dural19, İzzet Duyar12, Berna Ertuğrul24, Agustín Espinosa23, Ignacio Estevan25, Carla Sofia Esteves26, Luxi Fang27, Tomasz Frackowiak3, Jorge Contreras Garduño28, Karina Ugalde González, Farida Guemaz, Petra Gyuris29, Mária Halamová, Iskra Herak21, Marina Horvat30, Ivana Hromatko31, Chin Ming Hui27, Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar32, Feng Jiang33, Konstantinos Kafetsios34, Tina Kavčič35, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair14, Nicolas Kervyn21, Truong Thi Khanh Ha20, Imran Ahmed Khilji, Nils C. Köbis36, Hoang Moc Lan20, András Láng29, Georgina R. Lennard16, Ernesto León23, Torun Lindholm9, Trinh Thi Linh20, Giulia Lopez37, Nguyen Van Luot20, Alvaro Mailhos25, Zoi Manesi38, Rocio Martinez39, Sarah L. McKerchar16, Norbert Meskó29, Girishwar Misra40, Conal Monaghan16, Emanuel C. Mora41, Alba Moya-Garófano39, Bojan Musil30, Jean Carlos Natividade42, Agnieszka Niemczyk3, George Nizharadze, Elisabeth Oberzaucher43, Anna Oleszkiewicz4, Anna Oleszkiewicz3, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee44, Ike E. Onyishi11, Barış Özener12, Ariela Francesca Pagani37, Vilmante Pakalniskiene45, Miriam Parise37, Farid Pazhoohi46, Annette Pisanski41, Katarzyna Pisanski47, Katarzyna Pisanski3, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano, Camelia Popa48, Pavol Prokop49, Pavol Prokop50, Muhammad Rizwan, Mario Sainz51, Svjetlana Salkičević31, Ruta Sargautyte45, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller50, Susanne Schmehl43, Shivantika Sharad40, Razi Sultan Siddiqui52, Franco Simonetti53, Stanislava Stoyanova54, Meri Tadinac31, Marco Antonio Correa Varella55, Christin-Melanie Vauclair26, Luis Diego Vega, Dwi Ajeng Widarini, Gyesook Yoo56, Marta Zat’ková, Maja Zupančič57 
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, University of Wrocław3, Dresden University of Technology4, Opole University5, University of Tartu6, Gulu University7, Middle East University8, Stockholm University9, University of the Punjab10, University of Nigeria, Nsukka11, Istanbul University12, Franklin & Marshall College13, Norwegian University of Science and Technology14, University of Algiers15, Australian National University16, Russian Academy of Sciences17, Russian State University for the Humanities18, İzmir University of Economics19, University of Social Sciences and Humanities20, Université catholique de Louvain21, Ankara University22, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru23, Cumhuriyet University24, University of the Republic25, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon26, The Chinese University of Hong Kong27, National Autonomous University of Mexico28, University of Pécs29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, University of Amsterdam36, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart37, VU University Amsterdam38, University of Granada39, University of Delhi40, University of Havana41, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro42, University of Vienna43, Universiti Utara Malaysia44, Vilnius University45, University of British Columbia46, Centre national de la recherche scientifique47, Romanian Academy48, Comenius University in Bratislava49, Slovak Academy of Sciences50, University of Monterrey51, DHA Suffa University52, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile53, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"54, University of São Paulo55, Kyung Hee University56, University of Ljubljana57
TL;DR: Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), this work attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives, finding neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.
Abstract: Considerable research has examined human mate preferences across cultures, finding universal sex differences in preferences for attractiveness and resources as well as sources of systematic cultural variation. Two competing perspectives-an evolutionary psychological perspective and a biosocial role perspective-offer alternative explanations for these findings. However, the original data on which each perspective relies are decades old, and the literature is fraught with conflicting methods, analyses, results, and conclusions. Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), we attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives. Support for universal sex differences in preferences remains robust: Men, more than women, prefer attractive, young mates, and women, more than men, prefer older mates with financial prospects. Cross-culturally, both sexes have mates closer to their own ages as gender equality increases. Beyond age of partner, neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.

129 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The mate switching hypothesis as discussed by the authors suggests that these circumstances created adaptive problems throughout human evolution that forged adaptations to anticipate and appraise opportunities to mate-switch, implement exit strategies, and manage challenges confronted in the aftermath.

119 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Mahalanobis distance and logistic regression are used to investigate sex differences in mate preferences with data secured from participants residing in 37 cultures and find sex differences are large in multivariate terms.
Abstract: Previous studies on sex-differentiated mate preferences have focused on univariate analyses However, because mate selection is inherently multidimensional, a multivariate analysis more appropriately measures sex differences in mate preferences We used the Mahalanobis distance (D) and logistic regression to investigate sex differences in mate preferences with data secured from participants residing in 37 cultures (n = 10,153) Sex differences are large in multivariate terms, yielding an overall D = 241, corresponding to overlap between the sexes of just 228% Moreover, knowledge of mate preferences alone affords correct classification of sex with 922% accuracy Finally, pattern-wise sex differences are negatively correlated with gender equality across cultures but are nonetheless cross-culturally robust Discussion focuses on implications in evaluating the importance and magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences

116 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

3,628 citations

Book ChapterDOI
31 Jan 1963

2,885 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The Social Psychology of Groups as discussed by the authors is a seminal work in the field of family studies, where the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship.
Abstract: The Social Psychology of Groups. J. W Thibaut & H. H. Kelley. New York: alley, 1959. The team of Thibaut and Kelley goes back to 1946 when, after serving in different units of the armed services psychology program, the authors joined the Research Center for Group Dynamics, first at M.LT and then at the University of Michigan. Their continued association eventuated in appointments as fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 19561957. It is during these years that their collaboration resulted in the publication of The Social Psychology of Groups. The book was designed to "bring order and coherence to present-day research in interpersonal relations and group functioning." To accomplish this aim, the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship. These basic principles and concepts were then employed to illuminate larger problems and more complex social relationships and to examine the significance of such concepts as roles, norm, power, group cohesiveness, and status. The lasting legacy of this book is derived from the fact that the concepts and principles discussed therein serve as a foundation for one of the dominant conceptual frameworks in the field of family studies today-the social exchange framework. Specifically, much of our contemporary thinking about the process of interpersonal attraction and about how individuals evaluate their close relationships has been influenced by the theory and concepts introduced in The Social Psychology of Groups. Today, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley, we think of interpersonal attraction as resulting from the unique valence of driving and restraining forces, rewards and costs, subjectively thought to be available from a specific relationship and its competing alternatives. We understand, as well, that relationships are evaluated through complex and subjectively based comparative processes. As a result, when we think about assessing the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their relationships, we take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the importance they attribute to different aspects of a relationship (e.g., financial security, sexual fulfillment, companionship). We also take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the levels of rewards and costs that they believe are realistically obtainable and deserved from a relationship. In addition, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley's theoretical focus on the concept of dependence and the interrelationship between attraction and dependence, there has evolved within the field of family studies a deeper appreciation for the complexities and variability found within relationships. Individuals are dependent on their relationships, according to Thibaut and Kelley, when the outcomes derived from the existing relationship exceed those perceived to be available in competing alternatives. Individuals who are highly dependent on their relationships are less likely to act to end their relationships. This dependence and the stability it engenders may or may not be voluntary, depending on the degree to which individuals are attracted to and satisfied with their relationships. When individuals are both attracted to and dependent on their relationships, they can be thought of as voluntarily participating in their relationship. That is, they are likely to commit themselves to the partner and relationship and actively work for its continuance. Thibaut and Kelley termed those relationships characterized by low levels of satisfaction and high levels of dependence "nonvoluntary relationships. …

1,894 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel Conroy-Beam1, David M. Buss2, Kelly Asao2, Agnieszka Sorokowska3, Agnieszka Sorokowska4, Piotr Sorokowski3, Toivo Aavik5, Grace Akello6, Mohammad Madallh Alhabahba7, Charlotte Alm8, Naumana Amjad9, Afifa Anjum9, Chiemezie S. Atama10, Derya Atamtürk Duyar11, Richard Ayebare, Carlota Batres12, Mons Bendixen13, Aicha Bensafia14, Boris Bizumic15, Mahmoud Boussena14, Marina Butovskaya16, Marina Butovskaya17, Seda Can18, Katarzyna Cantarero19, Antonin Carrier20, Hakan Cetinkaya21, Ilona Croy4, Rosa María Cueto22, Marcin Czub3, Daria Dronova16, Seda Dural18, İzzet Duyar11, Berna Ertuğrul23, Agustín Espinosa22, Ignacio Estevan24, Carla Sofia Esteves25, Luxi Fang26, Tomasz Frackowiak3, Jorge Contreras Garduño27, Karina Ugalde González, Farida Guemaz, Petra Gyuris28, Mária Halamová29, Iskra Herak20, Marina Horvat30, Ivana Hromatko31, Chin Ming Hui26, Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar32, Feng Jiang33, Konstantinos Kafetsios34, Tina Kavčič35, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair13, Nicolas Kervyn20, Truong Thi Khanh Ha19, Imran Ahmed Khilji36, Nils C. Köbis37, Hoang Moc Lan19, András Láng28, Georgina R. Lennard15, Ernesto León22, Torun Lindholm8, Trinh Thi Linh19, Giulia Lopez38, Nguyen Van Luot19, Alvaro Mailhos24, Zoi Manesi39, Rocio Martinez40, Sarah L. McKerchar15, Norbert Meskó28, Girishwar Misra41, Conal Monaghan15, Emanuel C. Mora42, Alba Moya-Garófano40, Bojan Musil30, Jean Carlos Natividade43, Agnieszka Niemczyk3, George Nizharadze, Elisabeth Oberzaucher44, Anna Oleszkiewicz3, Anna Oleszkiewicz4, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee45, Ike E. Onyishi10, Barış Özener11, Ariela Francesca Pagani38, Vilmante Pakalniskiene46, Miriam Parise38, Farid Pazhoohi47, Annette Pisanski42, Katarzyna Pisanski48, Katarzyna Pisanski3, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano, Camelia Popa49, Pavol Prokop50, Pavol Prokop51, Muhammad Rizwan, Mario Sainz52, Svjetlana Salkičević31, Ruta Sargautyte46, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller53, Susanne Schmehl44, Shivantika Sharad41, Razi Sultan Siddiqui54, Franco Simonetti55, Stanislava Stoyanova56, Meri Tadinac31, Marco Antonio Correa Varella57, Christin-Melanie Vauclair25, Luis Diego Vega, Dwi Ajeng Widarini, Gyesook Yoo58, Marta Zaťková29, Maja Zupančič59 
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, University of Wrocław3, Dresden University of Technology4, University of Tartu5, Gulu University6, Middle East University7, Stockholm University8, University of the Punjab9, University of Nigeria, Nsukka10, Istanbul University11, Franklin & Marshall College12, Norwegian University of Science and Technology13, University of Algiers14, Australian National University15, Russian Academy of Sciences16, Russian State University for the Humanities17, İzmir University of Economics18, University of Social Sciences and Humanities19, Université catholique de Louvain20, Ankara University21, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru22, Cumhuriyet University23, University of the Republic24, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon25, The Chinese University of Hong Kong26, National Autonomous University of Mexico27, University of Pécs28, University of Constantine the Philosopher29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology36, University of Amsterdam37, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart38, VU University Amsterdam39, University of Granada40, University of Delhi41, University of Havana42, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro43, University of Vienna44, Universiti Utara Malaysia45, Vilnius University46, University of British Columbia47, University of Sussex48, Romanian Academy49, Comenius University in Bratislava50, Slovak Academy of Sciences51, University of Monterrey52, SAS Institute53, DHA Suffa University54, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile55, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"56, University of São Paulo57, Kyung Hee University58, University of Ljubljana59
TL;DR: This work combines this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets and finds that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
Abstract: Humans express a wide array of ideal mate preferences. Around the world, people desire romantic partners who are intelligent, healthy, kind, physically attractive, wealthy, and more. In order for these ideal preferences to guide the choice of actual romantic partners, human mating psychology must possess a means to integrate information across these many preference dimensions into summaries of the overall mate value of their potential mates. Here we explore the computational design of this mate preference integration process using a large sample of n = 14,487 people from 45 countries around the world. We combine this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets. Across cultures, people higher in mate value appear to experience greater power of choice on the mating market in that they set higher ideal standards, better fulfill their preferences in choice, and pair with higher mate value partners. Furthermore, we find that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.

1,827 citations