# Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics

Part of the Sequence: [The Science of Winning at Life](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Winning_at_Life). Co-authored with [Minda Myers](http://spirituality.mindamyers.com/) and[Hugh Ristik](/user/HughRistik/). Also see: [Polyhacking](/lw/79x/polyhacking/).

When things [fell apart](/lw/70u/rationality_lessons_learned_from_irrational/) between me (Luke) and my first girlfriend, I decided _that_ kind of relationship wasn't ideal for me.

I didn't like the jealous feelings that had arisen within me. I didn't like the desperate, codependent 'madness' that popular love songs [celebrate](http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beyonceknowles/crazyinlove.html). I had moral objections to the idea of owning somebody else's sexuality, and to the idea of somebody else owning _mine_. Some of my culture's scripts for what a man-woman relationship should look like didn't fit my own goals very well.

I needed to _design_ romantic relationships that made sense ([decision-theoretically](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Decision_theory)) for me, rather than simply _falling_ into whatever relationship model my culture happened to offer. (The ladies of [Sex and the City](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_the_City#Series_overview) weren't too good with decision theory, but they certainly invested time figuring out which relationship styles worked for _them_.) For a while, this new approach led me into a series of short-lived flings. After that, I chose 4 months of contented celibacy. After that, [polyamory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory). After that...

Anyway, the results have been wonderful. Rationality and decision theory work for relationships, too!

We humans [compartmentalize by default](/lw/1zu/compartmentalization_as_a_passive_phenomenon/). Brains don't automatically enforce [belief propagation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_propagation), and aren't configured to do so. [Cached thoughts](/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/) and [cached selves](/lw/4e/cached_selves/) can remain even after one has applied the lessons of the [core sequences](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences#Core_Sequences) to particular parts of one's life. That's why it helps to _explicitly_ examine what happens when you apply rationality to new areas of your life — from [disease](/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/) to [goodness](/lw/bk/the_trouble_with_good/) to [morality](/lw/5kn/conceptual_analysis_and_moral_theory/). Today, we apply rationality to _relationships_.

#### Relationships Styles

When [Minda](http://www.mindamyers.com/) had her first relationship with a woman, she found that the cultural scripts for heterosexual relationships didn't work for a homosexual relationship style. For example, in heterosexual dating (in the USA) the man is expected to ask for the date, plan the date, and escalate sexual interaction. A woman expects that she will be pursued and not have to approach men, that on a date she should be passive and follow the man's lead, and that she shouldn't initiate sex herself.

In the queer community, Minda quickly found that if she passively waited for a woman to hit on her, she'd be waiting all night! When she met her first girlfriend, _Minda_ had to ask for the date. Minda writes:

> On dates, I didn't know if I should pay for the date or hold the door or what I was supposed to do! Each interaction required thought and negotiation that hadn't been necessary before. And this was really kind of neat. We had the opportunity to create a relationship that worked for us and represented us as unique and individual human beings. And when it came to sexual interactions, I found it easy to ask for and engage in exactly what I wanted. And I have since brought these practices into my relationships with men. 

But you don't need to have an 'alternative' relationship in order to decide you want to set aside some cultural scripts and design a relationship style that works for you. You can choose relationship styles that work for you _now_.

With regard to which type(s) of romantic partner(s) you want, there are many possibilities.

No partners:

*   _Asexuality_. Asexuals don't experience sexual attraction. They [comprise](http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-14/tech/asexual.study_1_sexuality-new-study-new-scientist?_s=PM:TECH) perhaps 1% of the population,^1^ and include [notables](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Notable_asexuals) like Paul Erdos, Morrissey, and Janeane Garofalo. There is a network ([AVEN](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_Visibility_and_Education_Network)) for asexuality awareness and acceptance.
*   _Celibacy_. Celibates feel sexual attraction, but abstain from sex. Some choose to abstain for medical, financial, psychological, or philosophical reasons. Others choose celibacy so they have more time to achieve other goals, as I (Luke) did for a time. Others are involuntarily celibate; perhaps they can't find or attract suitable mates. This problem can often be solved by [learning and practicing social skills](/lw/5p6/how_and_why_to_granularize/#social).

One partner:

*   _Monogamy_. Having one sexual partner at a time is a standard cultural script, and may be over-used due to the [status quo bias](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Status_quo_bias). Long-term monogamy should not be done on the pretense that attraction and arousal for one's partner won't fade. It will.^2^ Still, there may be many people for whom monogamy is optimal. 

Many partners:

*   _Singlehood_. Singlehood can be a good way to get to know yourself and experience a variety of short-term partners. About 78% of college students have had at least one 'one-night stand', and most such encounters were preceded by alcohol or drug use.^3^ Indeed, many young people today no longer go on 'dates' to get to know a potential partner. Instead, they meet each other at a social event, 'hook up', and _then_ go on dates (if the hookup went well).^4^
*   _Friendship 'with benefits'_. Friends are often people you already enjoy and respect, and thus may also make excellent sexual partners. According to one study, 60% of undergraduates have been a 'friend with benefits' for someone at one time.^5^
*   _Polyamory._^6^ In a polyamorous relationship, partners are clear about their freedom to pursue multiple partners. Couples communicate their boundaries and make agreements about what is and isn't allowed. Polyamory often requires partners to [de-program jealousy](http://books.google.com/books?id=SNCy0iqZMskC&lpg=PT87&vq=unlearning%20jealousy&pg=PT87#v=onepage&q&f=false). In my experience, polyamory is _much_ more common in the rationality community than in the general population.

[Hugh](/user/HughRistik/) points out that your limbic system may not agree (at least initially) with your cognitive choice of a relationship style. Some women say they want a long-term relationship but date 'bad boys' who are unlikely to become long-term mates. Someone may think they want polyamorous relationships but find it impossible to leave jealousy behind.^7^

#### The Science of Attraction

A key skillset required for having the relationships you want is that of _building and maintaining attraction in potential mates_.

Guys seeking girls may wonder: Why do girls say they want "nice guys" but date only "jerks"? Girls seeking rationalist guys are at an advantage because the gender ratio lies in their favor, but they still might wonder: What can I do to attract the _best_ mates? Those seeking same-sex partners may wonder how attraction can differ from heterosexual norms.

How do you build and maintain attraction in others? A lot can be learned by [trying different things](/lw/5a5/no_seriously_just_try_it/) and seeing what works. This is often better than polling people, because people's verbal reports about what attracts them don't always match their actual behavior.^8^

To get you started, the [virtues](http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues) of [scholarship](/lw/3m3/the_neglected_virtue_of_scholarship/) and [empiricism](/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/) will serve you well. [Social psychology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology) has a wealth of knowledge to offer on successful relationships.^9^ For example, here are some things that, according to the latest research, will tend to make people more attracted to you:

*   _Proximity_ and _familiarity_. Study after study shows that we tend to like those who live near us, partly due to availability,^10^ and partly because repeated exposure to almost _anything_ increases liking.^11^ A Taiwanese man once demonstrated the power of proximity and repeated exposure when he wrote over 700 letters to his girlfriend, urging her to marry him. She married the mail carrier.^12^
*   _Similarity_. We tend to like people who are similar to us.^13^ We like people with faces similar to our own.^14^ We are even more likely to marry someone with a similar-sounding name.^15^ Similarity makes attraction endure longer.^16 ^Also, similar people are more likely to react to events the same way, thus reducing the odds of conflict.^17^
*   _Physical attractiveness_. Both men and women prefer good-looking mates.^18^ Partly, this is because the [halo effect](/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/): we automatically assume that more attractive people are also healthier, happier, more sensitive, more successful, and more socially skilled (but not necessarily more honest or compassionate).^19^ Some of these assumptions are correct: Attractive and well-dressed people _are_ more likely to impress employers and succeed occupationally.^20^ But isn't beauty relative? Some standards of beauty vary from culture to culture, but many are universal.^21^ Men generally prefer women who exhibit signs of youth and fertility.^22^ Women generally prefer men who (1) display possession of abundant resources,^23^ (2) display high social status,^24^ (3) exhibit a 'manly' face (large jaw, thick eyebrows, visible beard stubble)^25^ and physique,^26^ and (4) are tall.^27^ Both genders generally prefer (1) [agreeableness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness), [conscientiousness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness), and [extraversion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion),^28^ (2) 'average' and symmetrical faces with features that are neither unusually small or large,^29^ (2) large smiles,^30^ (3) pupil dilation,^31^ and some other things (more on this later).
*   _Liking others_. Liking someone makes them more attracted to you.^32^
*   _Arousing others_. Whether aroused by fright, exercise, stand-up comedy, or erotica, we are more likely to be attracted to an attractive person when we are generally aroused than when we are not generally aroused.^33^ As David Myers writes, "Adrenaline makes the heart grow fonder."^34^ This may explain why rollercoasters and horror movies are such a popular date night choice.

But this barely scratches the surface of attraction science. In a later post, we'll examine how attraction works in more detail, and draw up a science-supported game plan for building attraction in others.

#### Attractiveness: Mean and Variance

Remember that increasing your _average_ attractiveness (by appealing to more people) may not be an optimal strategy.

Marketers know that it's often better to sacrifice broad appeal in order for a product to have very _strong_ appeal to a [niche market](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market). [The Appunto](http://web.archive.org/web/20110202095449/https://theappunto.com/) doesn't appeal to most men, but it appeals strongly enough to _some_ men that they are willing to pay the outrageous $200 price for it.

Similarly, you may have the best success in dating if you appeal _very strongly_ to _some_ people, even if this makes you less appealing to _most_ people — that is, if you adopt a niche marketing strategy in the dating world.^35^

As long as you can _find_ those few people who find you _very_ attractive, it won't matter (for dating) that _most_ people aren't attracted to you. And because one can switch between niche appeal and broad appeal using fashion and behavior, you can simply use clothing and behavior with mainstream appeal during the day (to have general appeal in professional environments) and use alternative clothing and behavior when you're socializing (to have _strong_ appeal to a small subset of people whom you've sought out).

To visualize this point, consider two attraction strategies. Both strategies employ phenomena that are (almost) universally attractive, but the blue strategy aims to maximize the frequency of _somewhat_ positive responses while the red strategy aims to maximize the frequency of _highly_ positive responses. The red strategy (e.g. using [mainstream fashion](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fashionable-mainstream-man.png)) increases one's _mean attractiveness_, while the blue strategy (e.g. using [alternative fashion](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fashionable-goth-guy.png)) increases one's _attractiveness variance_. [Hugh Ristik](/user/HughRistik/) offers the following chart:

![](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/attractiveness-mean-and-variance.png)

[This goth guy](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/death-guild-guy.jpg) and I (Luke) can illustrate this phenomenon. I aim for mainstream appeal; he wears [goth clothing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_fashion) when socializing. My mainstream look turns off almost no one, and is attractive to most women, but doesn't get that many _strong_ reactions right away unless I employ _other_ high-variance strategies.^36^ In contrast, I would bet the goth guy's alternative look turns off many people and is less attractive to most women than _my_ look is, but has a higher frequency of _extremely_ positive reactions in women.

In one's professional life, it may be better to have broad appeal. But in dating, the _goal_ is to find people who find you extremely attractive. The goth guy sacrifices his mean attractiveness to increase his attractiveness variance (and thus the frequency of _very_ positive responses), and this works well for him in the dating scene.

High-variance strategies like this are a good way to filter for people who are strongly attracted to you, and thus avoid wasting your time with potential mates who only feel lukewarm toward you.

#### Up next

In future posts we'll develop an action plan for using the science of attraction to create successful romantic relationships. We'll also explain how rationality helps with relationship maintenance^37^ and relationship satisfaction.

Previous post: [The Power of Reinforcement](/lw/cu2/the_power_of_reinforcement/)

#### Notes

^1^ Bogaert (2004).

^2^ About half of romantic relationships of all types end within a few years (Sprecher 1994; Kirkpatrick & Davis 1994; Hill et al 1976), and even relationships that last exhibit diminishing attraction and arousal (Aron et al. 2006; Kurdek 2005; Miller et al. 2007). Note that even if attraction and arousal fades, romantic love can exist in long-term closed monogamy and it is associated with relationship satisfaction (Acevedo & Aron, 2009).

^3^ Paul et al. (2000); Grello et al. (2006).

^4^ Bogle (2008).

^5^ Bisson & Levine (2009).

^6^ Two introductory books on the theory and practice of polyamory are: Easton & Hardy (2009) and Taormino (2008).

^7^ See work on 'conditional mating strategies' aka 'strategic pluralism' (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).

^8^ Sprecher & Felmlee (2008); Eastwick & Finkel (2008). Likewise, there is a difference between what people publicly report as being the cause of a breakup, what they actually think caused a breakup, and what actually caused a breakup (Powell & Fine, 2009). Also see [Inferring Our Desires](/lw/5sk/inferring_our_desires/).

^9^ For overviews of this research, see: Bradbury & Karney (2010); Miller & Perlman (2008); Vangelisti & Perlman (2006); Sprecher et al. (2008); Weiten et al. (2011), chs. 8-12. For a history of personal relationships research, see Perlman & Duck (2006).

^10^ Goodfriend (2009).

^11^This is called the [mere exposure effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_exposure_effect). See Le (2009); Moreland & Zajonc (1982); Nuttin (1987); Zajonc (1968, 2001); Moreland & Beach (1992). The limits of this effect are explored in Bornstein (1989, 1999); Swap (1977).

^12^ Steinberg (1993).

^13^ Zajonc (1998); Devine (1995); Rosenbaum (1986); Surra et al. (2006); Morry (2007, 2009); Peplau & Fingerhut (2007); Ledbetter et al. (2007); Montoya et al. (2008); Simpson & Harris (1994).

^14^ DeBruine (2002, 2004); Bailenson et al. (2005).

^15^ Jones et al. (2004).

^16^ Byrne (1971); Ireland et al. (2011).

^17^ Gonzaga (2009). For an overview of the research on self-disclosure, see Greene et al. (2006).

^18^ Langlois et al. (2000); Walster et al. (1966); Feingold (1990); Woll (1986); Belot & Francesconi (2006); Finkel & Eastwick (2008); Neff (2009); Peretti & Abplanalp (2004); Buss et al. (2001); Fehr (2009); Lee et al. (2008); Reis et al. (1980). This is also true for homosexuals: Peplau & Spalding (2000). Even infants prefer attractive faces: Langlois et al. (1987); Langlois et al. (1990); Slater et al. (1998). Note that women report that the physical attractiveness is less important to their mate preferences than it actually is: Sprecher (1989).

^19^ Eagly et al. (1991); Feingold (1992a); Hatfield & Sprecher (1986); Smith et al. (1999); Dion et al. (1972).

^20^ Cash & Janda (1984); Langlois et al. (2000); Solomon (1987).

^21^ Cunningham et al. (1995); Cross & Cross (1971); Jackson (1992); Jones (1996); Thakerar & Iwawaki (1979).

^22^ Men certainly prefer youth (Buss 1989a; Kenrick & Keefe 1992; Kenrick et al. 1996; Ben Hamida et al. 1998). Signs of fertility that men prefer include clear and smooth skin (Sugiyama 2005; Singh & Bronstad 1997; Fink & Neave 2005; Fink et al. 2008; Ford & Beach 1951; Symons 1995), facial femininity (Cunningham 2009; Gangestad & Scheyd 2005; Schaefer et al. 2006; Rhodes 2006), long legs (Fielding et al. 2008; Sorokowski & Pawlowski 2008; Bertamini & Bennett 2009; Swami et al. 2006), and a low waist-to-hip ratio (Singh 1993, 2000; Singh & Young 1995; Jasienska et al. 2004; Singh & Randall 2007; Connolly et al 2000; Furnham et al 1997; Franzoi & Herzog 1987; Grabe & Samson 2010). Even men blind from birth prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio (Karremans et al. 2010).

^23^ Buss et al. (1990); Buss & Schmitt (1993); Khallad (2005); Gottschall et al. (2003); Gottschall et al. (2004); Kenrick et al. (1990); Gustavsson & Johnsson (2008); Wiederman (1993); Badahdah & Tiemann (2005); Marlowe (2004); Fisman et al. (2006); Asendorpf et al. (2010); Bokek-Cohen et al. (2007); Pettay et al. (2007); Goode (1996).

^24^ Feingold (1990, 1992b).

^25^ Cunningham (2009); Cunningham et al. (1990).

^26^ Singh (1995); Martins et al. (2007).

^27^ Lynn & Shurgot (1984); Ellis (1992); Gregor (1985); Kurzban & Weeden (2005); Swami & Furnham (2008). In contrast, men prefer women who are about 4.5 inches shorter than themselves: Gillis & Avis (1980).

^28^ Figueredo et al. (2006).

^29^ Langlois & Roggman (1990); Rhodes et al. (1999); Singh (1995); Thornhill & Gangestad (1994, 1999). We may have evolved to be attracted to symmetrical faces because they predict physical and mental health (Thornhill & Moller, 1997).

^30^ Cunningham (2009).

^31^ Cunningham (2009).

^32^ This is called [reciprocal liking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_liking). See Curtis & Miller (1986); Aron et al (2006); Berscheid & Walster (1978); Smith & Caprariello (2009); Backman & Secord (1959).

^33^ Carducci et al. (1978); Dermer & Pszczynski (1978); White & Knight (1984); Dutton & Aron (1974).

^34^ Myers (2010), p. 710.

^35^ One example of a high-variance strategy for heterosexual men in the dating context is a bold opening line like "You look familiar. Have we had sex?" Most women will be turned off by such a line, but those who react positively are (by selection and/or by the confidence of the opening line) usually _very _attracted. 

^36^ In business, this is often said as "not everyone is your customer": [1](http://www.drjeffcornwall.com/2010/10/everyone-is-not-your-potential.html), [2](http://www.thesilverbulletforsmallbusiness.com/2011/04/small-business-marketing-tip-why-your-ideal-customer-isnt-everyone/), [3](http://articles.mplans.com/not-everybody-is-your-customer/).

^37^ For discussions of relationship maintenance in general, see: Ballard-Reisch & Wiegel (1999); Dinda & Baxter (1987); Haas & Stafford (1998).

#### References

Acevedo & Aron (2009). [Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love?](https://1445081729018657037-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/simingdong/Home/gpr13159.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crX7vsV1CnXM9LZV2YzC3SNVKMbTJBaijisoM7FgAXymhq6oGUB5bB-hYxNA1m19PhaMXGYT1Bka_jOuZFSXhpAz78U37s0rUJl8XqKdmwd4NmeCF5fzoRBzRafjznA2BisONOQqyLqoE18cwBUYLcjSw3HiTaMDGG1uXvTxPu1z6WIjpG2jpBLcSODPDmzDYyPzqgcUHHNA6qYLbk4DcuM3udUsA%3D%3D&attredirects=0) _Review of General Psychology, 13_: 59-65.

Aron, Fisher, & Strong (2006). Romantic love. In Vangelisti & Perlman (eds.), _The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships_. Cambridge University Press.

Asendorpf, Penke, & Back (2010). [From dating to mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed dating in a community sample](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FAsendorpf-From-dating-to-mating-and-relating-Predictors-of-initial-and-long-term-outcomes-of-speed-dating-in-a-community-sample.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=From%20dating%20to%20mating%20and%20relating%3A%20Predictors%20of%20initial%20and%20long-term%20outcomes%20of%20speed%20dating%20in%20a%20community%20sample). _European Journal of Personality_.

Backman & Secord (1959). The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal attraction. _Human Relations, 12_: 379-384.

Badahdah & Tiemann (2005). Mate selection criteria among Muslims living in America. _Evolution and Human Behavior, 26_: 432-440.

Bailenson, Iyengar, & Yee (2005). [Facial identity capture and presidential candidate preference](http://vhil.stanford.edu/pubs/2005/identity-capture.html). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association.

Ballard-Reisch & Wiegel (1999). Communication processes in marital commitment: An integrative approach. In Adams & Jones (eds.), _Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability_ (pp. 407-424). Plenum.

Belot & Francesconi (2006). [Can anyone be 'the one'? Evidence on mate selection from speed dating](http://www.essex.ac.uk/economics/discussion-papers/papers-text/dp620.pdf). Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Ben Hamida, Mineka, & Bailey (1998). Sex differences in perceived controllability of mate value: An evolutionary perspective. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75_: 953–966.

Berscheid & Walster (1978). _[Interpersonal Attraction](http://www.amazon.com/Interpersonal-Attraction-Ellen-Berscheid/dp/007554802X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. Addison-Wesley.

Bertamini & Bennett (2009). [The effect of leg length on perceived attractiveness of simplified stimuli](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FBertamini-The-effect-of-leg-length-on-perceived-attractiveness-of-simplified-stimuli.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=The%20effect%20of%20leg%20length%20on%20perceived%20attractiveness%20of%20simplified%20stimuli). _Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3_: 233-250.

Bogaert (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. _Journal of Sex Research, 41_: 279-287.

Bogle (2008). _[Hooking Up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus](http://www.amazon.com/Hooking-Up-Dating-Relationships-Campus/dp/0814799698/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. New York University Press.

Bokek-Cohen, Peres, & Kanazawa (2007). [Rational choice and evolutionary psychology as explanations for mate selectivity](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FBokek-Cohen-Rational-choice-and-evolutionary-psychology-as-explanations-for-mate-selectivity.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Rational%20choice%20and%20evolutionary%20psychology%20as%20explanations%20for%20mate%20selectivity). _Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2_: 42-55.

Bornstein (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. _Psychological Bulletin, 106_: 265-289.

Bornstein (1999). Source amnesia, misattribution, and the power of unconscious perceptions and memories. _Psychoanalytic Psychology, 16_: 155-178.

Bradbury & Karney (2010). _[Intimate Relationships](http://www.amazon.com/Intimate-Relationships-Thomas-N-Bradbury/dp/0393979571/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. W.W. Norton & Company.

Buss (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. _Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12_: 1-49.

Buss & Schmitt (1993). [Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FBuss-Sexual-strategies-theory-An-evolutionary-perspective-on-human-mating.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Sexual%20strategies%20theory%3A%20An%20evolutionary%20perspective%20on%20human%20mating). _Psychological Review, 100_: 204-232.

Buss, Abbott, Angleitner, Asherian, Biaggio, et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. _Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21_: 5-47.

Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen (2001). [A half century of mate preeferences: The cultural evolution of values](http://www.homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/half%20century%20of%20mate%20prefs-2001-jmf.pdf). _Journal of Marriage and Family, 63_: 291-503.

Byrne (1971). _[The Attraction Paradigm](http://www.amazon.com/Attraction-Personality-Psychopathology-Psycho-pathology-Monographs/dp/0121486508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. Academic Press.

Carducci, Cosby, & Ward (1978). Sexual arousal and interpersonal evaluations. _Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14_: 449-457.

Cash & Janda (1984). The eye of the beholder. _Psychology Today, November_: 46-52.

Connolly, Mealey, & Slaughter (2000). The development of waist-to-hip ratio preferences. _Perspectives in Human Biology, 5_: 19-29.

Cross & Cross (1971). Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. _Developmental Psychology, 5_: 433-439.

Cunningham, Roberts, Wu, Barbee, & Druen (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female attractiveness. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68_: 261-279.

Cunningham (2009). Physical Attractiveness, Defining Characteristics. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 3_ (pp. 1237-1242). Sage Reference.

Curtis & Miller (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51_: 284-290.

DeBruine (2002). [Facial resemblance enhances trust](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/269/1498/1307.full.pdf). _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 269_: 1307-1312.

DeBruine (2004). [Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1552/2085.full.pdf). _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271_: 2085-2090.

Dermer & Pszczynski (1978). [Effects of erotica upon men's loving and liking responses for women they love](https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/dermer/public/vita/dermer_erotica.pdf). _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36_: 1302-1309.

Devine (1995). Prejudice and outgroup perception. In Teser (ed.), _Advanced Social Psychology._ McGraw-Hill.

Dinda & Baxter (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. _Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4_: 143-158.

Dion, Berscheid, & Walster (1972). What is beautiful is good. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24_: 285-290.

Dutton & Aron (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30_: 510-517.

Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Kennedy (1991). What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. _Psychological Bulletin, 110_: 109-128.

Easton & Hardy (2009). _[The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures, 2nd edition](http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Slut-Practical-Relationships-Adventures/dp/1587613379/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. The Celestial Arts.

Eastwick & Finkel (2008). [Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?](http://www.eastwick.motives.com/EastwickFinkel2008JPSP.pdf) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 245-264.

Eldridge (2009). Conflict patterns. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of human relationships: Vol. 1_ (pp. 307-310). Sage Reference.

Ellis (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby (eds.), _The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture_ (pp. 267-288). Oxford University Press.

Fehr (2009). Friendship formation and development. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 1_ (pp. 706-10). Sage Reference.

Feingold (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59_: 981-993.

Feingold (1992a). Good-looking people are not what we think. _Psychological Bulletin, 111_: 304-341.

Feingold (1992b). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. _Psychological Bulletin, 116_: 429-256.

Figueredo, Sefcek, & Jones (2006). [The ideal romantic partner personality](http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ajf/pdf/Figueredo,%20Sefcek,%20%26%20Jones%202006.pdf). _Personality and Individual Differences, 41_: 431-441.

Fielding, Scholling, Adab, Cheng, Lao et al. (2008). Are longer legs associated with enhanced fertility in Chinese women? _Evolution and Human Behavior, 29_: 434-443.

Fink & Neave (2005). The biology of facial beauty. _Internal Journal of Cosmetic Science, 27_: 317-325.

Fink, Matts, Klingenberg, Kuntze, Weege, & Grammar (2008). [Visual attention to variation in female skin color distribution](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FFink-Visual-attention-to-variation-in-female-skin-color-distribution.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Visual%20attention%20to%20variation%20in%20female%20skin%20color%20distribution). _Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7_: 155-161.

Finkel & Eastwick (2008). Speed-dating. _Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17_: 193-197.

Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. _The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121_: 673-697.

Ford & Beach (1951). _[Patterns of Sexual Behavior](http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Sexual-Behavior-Clellan-Stearns/dp/B000OEXAMM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. Harper & Row.

Franzoi & Herzog (1987). Judging personal attractiveness: What body aspects do we use? _Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13_: 19-33.

Furnham, Tan, & McManus (1997). [Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FFurnham-Waist-to-hip-ratio-and-preferences-for-body-shape-A-replication-and-extension.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Waist-to-hip%20ratio%20and%20preferences%20for%20body%20shape%3A%20A%20replication%20and%20extension). _Personality and Individual Differences, 22_: 539-549.

Gangestad & Simpson (2000). [The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism](http://smg.media.mit.edu/classes/Identity2004/EvolutionOfHumanMating.pdf). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23: 573-644.

Gangestad & Scheyd (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. _Annual Review of Anthropology, 34_: 523-548.

Gillis & Avis (1980).

Gonzaga (2009). Similarity in ongoing relationships. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 3_ (pp. 1496-1499). Sage Reference.

Goode (1996). Gender and courtship entitlement: Responses to personal ads. _Sex Roles, 34_: 141-169.

Goodfriend (2009). Proximity and attraction. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 3_ (pp. 1297-1299). Sage Reference.

Gottschall, Berkey, Cawson, Drown, Fleischner, et al. (2003). [Patterns of characterization in folktales across geographic regions and levels of cultural complexity: Literature as a neglected source of quantitative data](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FGottschall-Patterns-of-characterization-in-folktales-across-geographic-regions-and-levels-of-cultural-complexity.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Patterns%20of%20characterization%20in%20folktales%20across%20geographic%20regions%20and%20levels%20of%20cultural%20complexity%3A%20Literature%20as%20a%20neglec...). _Human Nature, 14_: 365-382.

Gottschall, Martin, Quish, & Rea (2004). [Sex differences in mate choice criteria are reflected in folktales from around the world and in historical European literature](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FGottschall-Sex-differences-in-mate-choice-criteria-are-reflected-in-folktales-from-around-the-world-and-in-historical-European-literature.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Sex%20differences%20in%20mate%20choice%20criteria%20are%20reflected%20in%20folktales%20from%20around%20the%20world%20and%20in%20historical%20European%20literature). _Evolution and Human Behavior, 25_: 102-112.

Grabe & Samson (2010). Sexual Cues Emanating From the Anchorette Chair: Implications for Perceived Professionalism, Fitness for Beat, and Memory for News. _Communication Research, December 14_.

Greene, Derlega, Mathews (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In Vangelisti & Perlman (eds.), _The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships _(pp. 409-428). Cambridge University Press.

Gregor (1985). _[Anxious Pleasures: The sexual lives of an Amazonian people](http://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Pleasures-Sexual-Amazonian-People/dp/0226307433/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. University of Chicago Press.

Grello, Welsh, & Harper (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. _Journal of Sex Research, 43_: 255-267.

Gustavsson & Johnsson (2008). [Mixed support for sexual selection theories of mate preferences in the Swedish population](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FGustavvsson-Mixed-support-for-sexual-selection-theories-of-mate-preferences-in-the-Swedish-population.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Mixed%20support%20for%20sexual%20selection%20theories%20of%20mate%20preferences%20in%20the%20Swedish%20population). _Evolutionary Psychology, 6_: 454-470.

Haas & Stafford (1998). An initial examination of maintenance behaviors in gay and lesbian relationships. _Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15_: 846-855.

Hatfield & Sprecher (1986). _[Mirror, mirror... The importance of looks in everyday life](http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Importance-Everyday-Sexual-Behavior/dp/0887061249/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. State University of New York Press.

Hill, Rubin, & Peplau (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. _Journal of Social Issues, 32_: 147-168.

Ireland, Slatcher, Eastwick, Scissors, Finkel, & Pennebaker (2011). [Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability](http://people.tamu.edu/~eastwick/Ireland2011_PSci.pdf). Psychological Science, 22: 39-44.

Jackson (1992). [Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological and sociocultural perspectives](http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Appearance-Gender-Sociobiological-Sociocultural/dp/0791408248/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20). State University of New York Press.

Jasienska, Ziomkiewicz, Ellison, Lipson, & Thune (2004). [Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FJasienska-Large-breasts-and-narrow-waists-indicate-high-reproductive-potential-in-women.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Large%20breasts%20and%20narrow%20waists%20indicate%20high%20reproductive%20potential%20in%20women). _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 271_: 1213-1217.

Jones (1996). _[Physical attractiveness and the theory of sexual selection](http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Attractiveness-Theory-Sexual-Selection/dp/0915703408/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. University of Michigan Press.

Jones, Pelham, Carvallo, & Mirenberg (2004). [How do I love thee? Let me count the Js: Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction](http://new.dixie.edu/humanities/File/Count%20the%20Js.pdf). _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87_: 665-683.

Karremans, Frankenhuis, & Arons (2010). [Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FKarremans-Blind-men-prefer-a-low-waist-to-hip-ratio.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Blind%20men%20prefer%20a%20low%20waist-to-hip%20ratio). _Evolution and Human Behavior, 31_: 182-186.

Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. _Journal of Personality, 58_: 97-116.

Kenrick, Keefe, Gabrielidis, & Cornelius (1996). Adolescents' age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. _Child Development, 67_: 1499-1511.

Kenrick & Keefe (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. _Behaivoral and Brain Sciences, 15_: 75-133.

Khallad (2005). Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. _Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22_: 155-168.

Kirkpatrick & Davis (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66_: 502-512.

Kurdek (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? _Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14_: 251-254. 

Kurzban & Weeden (2005). [HurryDate: Mate preferences in action](http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006spring/spcl/091p/016/hurrydate.pdf). _Evolution and Human Behavior, 26_: 227-244.

Langlois & Roggman (1990). [Attractive faces are only average](http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homePage/Group/LangloisLAB/PDFs/Langlois.PS.1990.pdf). _Psychological Science, 1_: 115-121.

Langlois, Roggman, & Reiser-Danner (1990). [Infants' differential social responses to attractive and unattractive faces](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FLanglois-Infants-differential-social-responses-to-attractive-and-unattractive-faces.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Infants'%20differential%20social%20responses%20to%20attractive%20and%20unattractive%20faces). _Developmental Psychology, 26_: 153-159.

Langlois, Roggman, Casey, Ritter, Riser-Danner, & Jenkins (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? _Developmental Psychology, 23_: 363-369.

Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, & Smoot (2000). [Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analysis and theoretical review](http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/Homepage/Group/LangloisLAB/meta.PDF). _Psychological Bulletin, 126_: 390-423.

Le (2009). Familiarity principle of attraction. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 1_ (pp. 596-597). Sage Reference.

Ledbetter, Griffin, & Sparks (2007). [Forecasting 'friends forever': A longitudinal investigation of sustained closeness between friends](http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~sparks/Friends%20Forever.pdf). _Personal Relationships, 14_: 343-350.

Lee, Loewenstein, Ariely, Hong, & Young (2008). If I'm not hot, are you hot or not? Physical-attractiveness evaluations and dating preferences as a function of one's own attractiveness. _Psychological Science, 19_: 669-577.

Lynn & Shurgot (1984). Responses to lonely hearts advertisements: Effects of reported physical attractiveness, physique, and coloration. _Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10_: 349-357.

Marlowe (2004). [Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FLanglois-Infants-differential-social-responses-to-attractive-and-unattractive-faces.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Mate%20preferences%20among%20Hadza%20hunter-gatherers). _Human Nature, 4_: 365-376.

Martins, Tiggermann, & Kirkbride (2007). Those speedos become them: The role of self-objectification in gay and heterosexual men's body image. _Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33_: 634-647.

Miller & Perlman (2008). _[Intimate Relationships, 5th edition](http://www.amazon.com/Intimate-Relationships-Rowland-Miller/dp/0073370185/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. McGraw-Hill.

Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25: 889-922.

Moreland & Beach (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. _Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28_: 255-276.

Moreland & Zajonc (1982). [Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction](http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/23882/1/0000121.pdf). _Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18_: 395-415.

Morry (2007). The attraction-similarity hypothesis among cross-sex friends: Relationship satisfactions, perceived similarities, and self-serving perception. _Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24_: 117-138.

Morry (2009). Similarity principle in attraction. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 3_ (pp. 1500-1504.

Myers (2010). _[Psychology, 9th edition](http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-David-G-Myers/dp/1429215976/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. Worth Publishers.

Neff (2009). Physical attractiveness, role in relationships. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 3_ (pp. 1242-1245). Sage Reference.

Nuttin (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name letter effect in twelve European languages. _European Journal of Social Psychology, 17_: 381-402.

Paul, Wenzel, & Harvey (2000). 'Hookups': Characteristics and correlates of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. _Journal of Sex Research, 37_: 76-88.

Peplau & Fingerhut (2007). [The close relationships of lesbians and gay men](http://www.casamariposa.org/Prop8/Attachments/PX1245.pdf). _Annual Review of Psychology, 58_: 405-424.

Peplau & Spalding (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In Hendrick & Hendrick (eds.), _Close relationships: A Sourcebook_. Sage.

Peretti & Abplanalp (2004). Chemistry in the college dating process: Structure and function. _Social Behavior and Personality, 32_: 147-154.

Perlman & Duck (2006). [The seven seas of the study of personal relationships: From “the thousand islands” to interconnected waterways](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Perlman-Duck-The-seven-seas-of-the-study-of-personal-relationships.pdf). In Vangelisti & Perlman (eds.), _The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships_ (pp. 11-34). Cambridge University Press.

Pettay, Helle, Jokela, & Lummaa (2007). [Natural selection on female life-history traits in relation to socio-economic class in pre-industrial human populations](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FPettay-Natural-selection-on-female-life-history-traits-in-relation-to-socio-economic-class-in-pre-industrial-human-populations.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Natural%20selection%20on%20female%20life-history%20traits%20in%20relation%20to%20socio-economic%20class%20in%20pre-industrial%20human%20populations). _Plos ONE, July_: 1-9.

Powell & Fine (2009). Dissolution of relationships, causes. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships: Vol. 1_ (pp. 436-440). Sage Reference.

Reis, Nezlek, & Wheeler (1980). Physical attractiveness in social interaction. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38_: 604-617.

Rhodes, Sumich, & Byatt (1999). [Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry?](http://academic.udayton.edu/psy49305/Articles/Rhodes%20(1999).pdf) _Psychological Science, 10_: 52-58.

Rhodes (2006). [The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FRhodes-The-evolutionary-psychology-of-facial-beauty.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=The%20evolutionary%20psychology%20of%20facial%20beauty). _Annual Review of Psychology, 57_: 199-226.

Rosenbaum (1986). [The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships](http://www.debralieberman.com/downloads/courses/625/rosenbaum_1986a.pdf). _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51_: 1156-1166.

Schaefer, Fink, Grammar, Mitteroecker, Gunz, & Bookstein (2006). [Female appearance: Facial and bodily attractiveness as shape](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FSchafer-et-al-Female-appearance-Facial-and-bodily-attractiveness-as-shape.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Female%20appearance%3A%20Facial%20and%20bodily%20attractiveness%20as%20shape). Psychology Science, 48: 187-205.

Simpson & Harris (1994). Interpersonal attraction. In Weber & Harvey (eds.), _Perspective on close relationships_ (pp. 45-66). Allyn & Bacon.

Singh (1993). [Adaptive significance of waist-to-hip ratio and female physical attractiveness](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FSingh-Adaptive-significance-of-waist-to-hip-ratio-and-female-physical-attractiveness.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Adaptive%20significance%20of%20waist-to-hip%20ratio%20and%20female%20physical%20attractiveness). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 293-307.

Singh (1995). Female health, attractiveness, and desirability for relationships: Role of breast asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. _Ethology and Sociobiology, 16_: 465-481.

Singh (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio: An indicator of female mate value. _International Research Center for Japanese Studies, International Symposium 16_: 79-99.

Singh & Bronstad (1997). Sex differences in the anatomical locations of human body scarification and tattooing as a function of pathogen prevalence. _Evolution and Human Behavior, 18_: 403-416.

Singh & Young (1995). [Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FSingh-Body-weight-waist-to-hip-ratio-breasts-and-hips-Role-in-judgments-of-female-attractiveness-and-desirability-for-relationships.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Body%20weight%2C%20waist-to-hip%20ratio%2C%20breasts%2C%20and%20hips%3A%20Role%20in%20judgments%20of%20female%20attractiveness%20and%20desirability%20for%20relations...). _Ethology and Sociobiology, 16_: 483-507.

Singh & Randall (2007). Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and women's attractiveness. _Personality and Individual Differences, 43_: 329-340. 

Slater, Von der Schulenburg, Brown, Badenoch, Butterworth, Parsons, & Samuels (1998). Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. _Infant Behavior and Development, 21_: 345-354.

Smith & Caprariello (2009). Liking. In Reis & Sprecher (eds.), _Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Vol. 2_ (pp. 978-982). Sage Reference.

Smith, McIntosh, & Bazzini (1999). [Are the beautiful good in Hollywood? An investigation of the beauty-and-goodness stereotype on film](http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/humans_web_04/beauty/film.pdf). _Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21_: 69-80.

Solomon (1987). Standard issue. _Psychology Today, November_: 30-31.

Sorokowski & Pawlowski (2008). [Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FSorokowski-Adaptive-preferences-for-leg-length-in-a-potential-partner.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=Adaptive%20preferences%20for%20leg%20length%20in%20a%20potential%20partner). _Evolution and Human Behavior, 29_: 86-91.

Sprecher (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. _Sex Roles, 21_: 591-607.

Sprecher (1994). Two studies on the breakup of dating and relationships. _Personal Relationships, 1_: 199-222.

Sprecher, Wenzel, & Harvey, eds. (2008). _[Handbook of Relationship Initiation](http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Relationship-Initiation-Susan-Sprecher/dp/0805861602/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. Psychology Press.

Steinberg (1993). Astonishing love stories (from an earlier United Press International report). _Games, February_: 47.

Sugiyama (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In Buss (ed.), _The handbook of evolutionary psychology_ (pp. 292-342). Wiley.

Surra, Gray, Boettcher, Cottle, & West (2006). [From Courtship to Universal Properties: Research on Dating and Mate Selection, 1950 to 2003](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Surra-et-al-From-Courtship-to-Universal-Properties-Research-on-Dating-and-Mate-Selection.pdf). In Vangelisti & Perlman (eds.), _Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships_. Cambridge University Press.

Swami, Einon, & Furnham (2006). [The leg-to-body ratio as a human aesthetic criterion](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=9f37ca02a1e3cbd4f3d0a3618a39fbca&loc=http%3A%2F%2Flesswrong.com%2Flw%2F5bw%2Fyour_evolved_intuitions%2F&v=1&libid=1309141282434&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseatheism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FSwami-The-leg-to-body-ratio-as-a-human-aesthetic-criterion.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015839050583929870010%253A-802ptn4igi%26cof%3DFORID%253A11%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dlukeprog%2B%2522waist%2Bto%2Bhip%2Bratio%2522%26sa%3DSearch%26siteurl%3Dlesswrong.com%252F%26toJSONString%3Dtrue%26ad%3Dw9%26num%3D10%26rurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flesswrong.com%252Fsearch%252Fresults%253Fcx%253D015839050583929870010%25253A-802ptn4igi%2526cof%253DFORID%25253A11%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526q%253Dlukeprog%252B%252522waist%252Bto%252Bhip%252Bratio%252522%2526sa%253DSearch%2526siteurl%253Dlesswrong.com%25252F&title=Your%20Evolved%20Intuitions%20-%20Less%20Wrong&txt=The%20leg-to-body%20ratio%20as%20a%20human%20aesthetic%20criterion). _Body Image, 3_: 317-323.

Swami & Furnham (2008).

Swap (1977). Interpersonal Attraction and Repeated Exposure to Rewarders and Punishers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3: 248–251.

Symons (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In Abramson & Pinkerton (eds.), _Sexual nature, sexual culture_ (pp. 80-118). University of Chicago Press.

Taormino (2008). [Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships](http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Up-Creating-Sustaining-Relationships/dp/157344295X/). Cleis Press.

Thakerar & Iwawaki (1979). Cross-cultural comparisons in interpersonal attraction of females toward males. _Journal of Social Psychology, 108_: 121-122.

Thornhill & Gangestad (1994). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. _Psychological Science, 5_: 292-302.

Thornhill & Gangestad (1999). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? _Evolution and Human Behavior, 20_: 175-201.

Thornhill & Moller (1997). The relative importance of size and asymmetry in sexual selection. _Behavioral Ecology, 9_: 546-551.

Vangelisti & Perlman (2006). _[The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships](http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Handbook-Relationships-Handbooks-Psychology/dp/0521826179/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. Cambridge University Press.

Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman (1966). [Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior](http://www2.hawaii.edu/~elaineh/13.pdf). _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4_: 508-516.

Weiten, Dunn, & Hammer (2011). _[Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century, 10th edition](http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Applied-Modern-Life-Adjustment/dp/1111186634/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0321928423&linkCode=as2&tag=lesswrong-20)_. Wadsworth Publishing.

White & Knight (1984). Misattribution of arousal and attraction: Effects of salience of explanations for arousal. _Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20_: 55-64.

Wiederman (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. _Ethology and Sociobiology, 14_: 331-352.

Woll (1986). So many to choose from: Decision strategies in videodating. _Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3_: 43-52.

Zajonc (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9_: 1-27.

Zajonc (1998). Emotions. In Gilbert, Fiske, & Lindzey (eds.), _Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edition._ McGraw Hill.

Zajonc (2001). [Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal](http://www.debralieberman.com/downloads/courses/625/Zajonc_2001.pdf). _Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10_: 224-228.