Why Do Women Prefer Tough Guys?

At a friend’s birthday dinner, a woman you admire for her good sense, her dry wit and her ability to read a contract in three minutes announces that she is seeing someone new. He rides a motorbike. He “doesn’t really do texting.” He once stared down a bouncer on her behalf and she has been glowing about it for a week. The table nods, smiles and exchanges the look people exchange when they have all seen this movie before. Later, over dessert, someone says it out loud: “Why do smart women always go for the tough guys?”

It’s one of the most repeated questions in dating folklore, and the folklore comes with a ready answer: women are wired to like dominant, aggressive, emotionally unavailable men, while the kind, attentive ones finish last. Dating coaches sell this idea by the hour. Songs, films and your cousin’s group chat confirm it daily. Unfortunately for the folklore, the research is far less cooperative.

The real story involves three different things that get blurred under one label: strength, status and menace. Pull them apart and most of the mystery goes with them, which is why this topic rewards a slower look than the dinner-table version allows.

This article examines why women (appear to) prefer tough guys, what studies of mate choice say, where the stereotype falls apart, and what it costs both women and men when “tough” is mistaken for “attractive.”

Do women actually prefer tough guys, or is that a myth?

Mostly a myth in its popular form. Research does show that some women, in some situations, find displays of strength and dominance attractive, but it does not show a general preference for aggressive or domineering men, especially in long-term partners. What women tend to prefer is closer to competence, confidence and kindness, and the “tough guy” label hides which of those is doing the work.

The most direct test came from psychologist Jeffrey K. Snyder, Lee A. Kirkpatrick and H. Clark Barrett in a 2008 paper titled “The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates?” in the journal Personal Relationships. They noted that previous research had led to a widely accepted conclusion that women prefer dominant men, and then tested it in three experiments with college women at two US universities, who evaluated hypothetical men described in written vignettes. When the researchers separated dominance (getting one’s way through intimidation or force) from prestige (earning status through skill and achievement), women preferred high-prestige men to high-dominance men. They also preferred low-dominance to high-dominance men in several conditions.

High dominance was preferred only under specific conditions: when it was displayed in an athletic competition, when no high-prestige alternative was available, and in ratings of attractiveness and desirability as a short-term mate. For long-term relationships, preferences for dominance dropped and preferences for prestige rose. The authors suggested a practical reason: a dominant man may be dominating at home as well.

That finding lines up with common sense. Few people want to be married to a bouncer’s temperament. What many do appreciate is a man who is calm under pressure, protective when needed and not easily pushed around, qualities that look “tough” from the outside but are compatible with warmth.

The study has limits. It used written vignettes, not real interactions; participants were college students in the US; and hypothetical preferences differ from real behavior, as the next sections show. Still, it overturns the simple story.

Imagine Carla, 27, who says she likes “strong” men. Asked to describe what that means, she mentions the colleague who stays steady in a crisis and the neighbor who helps carry groceries without being asked. Neither would be described as aggressive. “Strong,” in her mouth, is a synonym for dependable.

The folk claim, then, borrows a real finding and stretches it far beyond what the data allow.

What is the difference between dominance and prestige, and why does it matter?

They are two different routes to status, and women’s reactions to them differ. Dominance means gaining influence through intimidation, force or the threat of punishment. Prestige means gaining influence through skills, knowledge or achievements that others freely admire and want to learn from. The distinction comes from evolutionary anthropology, and it clears up much of the confusion about “tough guys.”

Anthropologist Joseph Henrich and Francisco J. Gil-White laid out the theory in a 2001 paper in Evolution and Human Behavior titled “The evolution of prestige.” They argued that humans, as a species heavily reliant on cultural learning, evolved two separate status systems. Dominance, shared with many other primates, rests on fear. Prestige, which they considered a uniquely human strategy, rests on deference freely given to those with valued skills or knowledge, because copying them is useful. Prestigious individuals are listened to, imitated and given space, and followers do not feel coerced.

The framework helps interpret what people call “tough.” A firefighter who runs into a burning building, a surgeon who steadies a panicking team and a climber who leads a hard route all look tough, yet their authority is prestige-based: it flows from competence that others value. A man who threatens, controls and bullies is dominant, and that behavior is a poor indicator of how he will treat a partner.

Part of the confusion is that the two can look alike in a short clip or a first meeting. Both involve confidence and a certain physical presence. The difference becomes clear over time, in how the person treats others who cannot reward or punish him.

The theory has been tested mostly in small societies, laboratory studies and surveys, and critics argue that the dominance-prestige dichotomy is too neat; many leaders use both. Still, it remains a helpful lens, and Snyder and colleagues’ findings fit it neatly.

Consider two coaches, Joaquin, 45, and Dale, 52. Joaquin’s players follow him because he’s improved their games. Dale’s players follow him because he yells. Ask the players which one they’d invite to a family dinner.

The interesting question is not whether someone is tough, but what their toughness is for.

What women say they want versus whom they actually choose

The two often differ. Studies that compare stated preferences (“my ideal partner would be…”) with real choices at speed-dating events find that stated ideals are poor predictors of whom people actually pursue. That undermines both the “women want nice guys” and “women want tough guys” slogans, since neither a questionnaire nor a bar-stool theory captures what happens in a room of strangers.

Psychologist Paul W. Eastwick and Eli J. Finkel ran a well-known study published in 2008 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Participants stated their ideal partner preferences before a speed-dating event. Replicating earlier research, they reported traditional sex differences: men said physical attractiveness mattered more, and women said earning prospects mattered more. But when the researchers measured romantic interest in real-life partners, there were no sex differences in how attractiveness and earning prospects predicted interest, and the ideals people had stated beforehand failed to predict what actually inspired their desire. The authors suggested that people may lack introspective awareness of what drives their attraction.

A separate team led by Peter M. Todd studied 46 adults at a speed-dating event in Germany and reported in 2007 in PNAS that stated preferences did not predict actual choices. They found that women were much more selective than men and chose men whose overall desirability matched their own self-perceived attractiveness, a pattern consistent with parental investment theory. Men chose largely on women’s physical attractiveness.

Both studies were small to moderate in size, involved particular samples and used a particular format. Speed dating captures first impressions, not long-term compatibility. But they carry an important message: asking “what do women prefer?” often gets you theories about preferences, not behavior.

Here is how that bears on the tough-guy myth. If women’s stated preferences do not predict their choices, then neither “I want a kind man” nor “I want a strong man” tells you much. What attracts people in the moment includes looks, chemistry, humor, confidence and how the other person treats them. The “tough” label may be doing little more than describing an attractive combination of confidence and presence.

It also reminds us that people tell themselves stories to explain attraction after the fact. A woman who falls for a quiet, funny man may describe him as “strong.” A woman who falls for a swaggering one may describe him as “honest.”

Take Ines, 31, who swears she wants someone gentle and then spends an evening transfixed by a loud, confident stranger. Next week she rates the gentle man a “friend.” Neither the rule nor the exception tells you what she’ll want in a year.

Do women want different men for short flings and long relationships?

Some evidence says yes, and it may explain why “tough guys” seem attractive at first yet disappointing later. Evolutionary psychologists Steven W. Gangestad and Jeffry A. Simpson proposed in a 2000 article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences a theory of strategic pluralism: that human mating is not governed by a single universal strategy but by conditional strategies that depend on circumstances, with trade-offs between the benefits of partner traits that signal “good genes” and the benefits of partner traits that signal willingness to invest in a relationship and offspring.

In their account, women face a dilemma. Some male traits (physical attractiveness, symmetry, masculinity, social dominance) may signal health or competitive success, and these traits are associated in some research with preferences in short-term contexts. Other traits (kindness, reliability, commitment) signal that a partner will stay and help. A man who excels at the first kind may be less inclined toward the second, and so women, in this view, weigh competing benefits depending on their goals and context.

That fits the findings from Snyder and colleagues that preferences for dominance were stronger in short-term contexts and weaker for long-term ones. It also fits the observation that many people want different things from a fling and from a life partner. A person looking for fun and excitement on a Friday night is not necessarily choosing the person she would trust to hold her hand at a hospital.

A large caveat is needed. Strategic pluralism is a theoretical framework, and some of its more specific predictions have had mixed support. Claims that women’s preferences for masculine faces or behaviors shift across the menstrual cycle, for example, have been widely discussed, and later work and replication attempts have produced inconsistent results. The broad idea that mating preferences are flexible and context-dependent is better supported than particular details. Also, most studies use college students and Western samples, and findings may not generalize across cultures or ages.

It is also a mistake to reduce women to a strategy. Individuals vary enormously, and personality, values, culture, religion, experience and plain chemistry shape whom they choose. Evolutionary models describe tendencies across populations, not rules for the person in front of you.

Consider Hana, 24, who enjoys a brief romance with a charismatic climber who is never available on weekends, and then, a year later, marries a patient teacher she met through a friend. She does not regret the climber. She also does not confuse him with a husband.

What a person wants from a few weeks and what they want from a few decades are different questions.

Are “bad boys” with dark-triad traits really more attractive?

For short-term mating, some research suggests they can be, though the evidence is narrow and the cost to partners is high. Psychologist Peter K. Jonason and colleagues reported in a 2009 article in the European Journal of Personality that the Dark Triad, a cluster of three traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy), was associated with a short-term mating strategy in men. In their studies of college students, men who scored higher on these traits reported more casual sex partners, more interest in short-term relationships and more use of manipulative tactics.

That finding is often presented as evidence that women find manipulative, callous men irresistible. But it does not say that. It says that men with these traits tend to pursue short-term mating and sometimes succeed at it. It does not show that women prefer them, or that they are chosen for long-term relationships. Success in casual encounters can reflect a man’s willingness to pursue many opportunities, to use charm and deception, and to take risks, not a general female preference for his traits.

Other research indicates that some Dark Triad features, particularly narcissism, which includes charm, confidence and extraversion, can create positive first impressions. Studies of how women rate men show mixed results: some find that narcissistic traits increase attractiveness ratings in brief interactions, while psychopathy and Machiavellianism tend to be less appealing when they become visible. The traits that attract are the superficial ones. The traits that harm are the ones that appear over time: lying, exploitation, lack of empathy, anger when challenged.

Researchers also stress that the Dark Triad is a set of personality traits, not a diagnosis. Most people with some of these characteristics do not commit crimes or abuse partners. The relevant concern for readers is about relationships: charm that conceals manipulation can leave partners confused, anxious and exploited.

There is a further point. Studies using self-reports and short interactions capture a snapshot, and the people who report on their own Dark Triad traits may differ from those who do not. The leap from “men with these traits report more casual partners” to “women love bad boys” is a large one. It also ignores the many women who have been hurt by such men and learned to spot the signals.

Picture Dani, 28, who dates a charming man for four months. He remembers every detail of her week and tells her she is unlike anyone he has met. Then she discovers that he has told the same lines to others and denies everything with a smile. Her attraction was real. So was the harm.

Charisma is not the problem. Charisma without conscience is.

Why do some women keep falling for emotionally unavailable men?

Often because of learned patterns about closeness, not a taste for toughness itself. Psychologists describe these patterns as attachment styles. Cindy Hazan and Phillip R. Shaver proposed in 1987 that adult romantic relationships can be understood through the same framework used to study infant bonds, and described secure, anxious and avoidant styles. Their work launched decades of research on how early relationships shape adult intimacy.

The pattern sometimes called the anxious-avoidant trap is a clinical description of what happens when a person with an anxious attachment style, who craves closeness and fears abandonment, pairs with a person with an avoidant style, who values independence and withdraws when intimacy grows. The anxious partner pursues, the avoidant partner pulls away, and the intermittent contact keeps the anxious partner hooked. A cool, self-contained, hard-to-reach man can look “strong” to someone whose nervous system treats distance as a challenge.

The idea is appealing, and it describes many people’s experience in therapy. But the evidence for a general tendency of anxious people to seek avoidant partners is less settled than pop psychology suggests. Studies find that people with anxious attachment are sometimes more likely to end up with avoidant partners, but the effect is modest, and secure people are generally preferred when available. Attachment styles also change with experience, and a style is not a destiny.

There are other forces at work. Emotional unavailability can feel familiar to someone who grew up with a distant or unpredictable caregiver. Intermittent warmth is powerful, as research on reinforcement schedules shows, and may seem more thrilling than steady affection. And social messages that equate love with struggle can make steady kindness look boring.

Note that none of this is about women being irrational. It is about how early learning shapes what feels like chemistry. A relationship that triggers old anxieties can feel intense, and intensity is easy to mistake for compatibility.

Picture Rosa, 33, who has been in three relationships with men who “needed space.” Her therapist asks her what quiet affection feels like. She says: “Suspicious.” That answer, rather than the men, is the interesting information.

If you recognize a pattern, a therapist who works with attachment, such as in emotionally focused or schema-based approaches, can help you understand it and practice different ways of relating.

How much do movies, music and social pressure shape the tough-guy ideal?

A lot, though measuring the effect is difficult. Popular culture has long paired romance with brooding, rule-breaking or physically intimidating male characters, and the pairing teaches both women and men what attraction is supposed to look like. When the leading man who stalks, controls or sulks gets the girl, the lesson is that persistence and intensity equal love.

Research on media effects suggests that repeated exposure to such scripts can influence beliefs about relationships, though the effects are typically small to moderate and hard to separate from other factors. Studies of romantic comedies and similar media find associations between heavy viewing and more idealized or unrealistic expectations, but the direction of cause is unclear: people with certain views may seek out certain media. Treat claims that “movies make women like bad boys” with caution.

Social influences also work through friends and family. Peers may admire a partner who looks high-status or exciting. Some communities equate masculinity with toughness and view gentleness as weakness, which shapes what men display and what women are encouraged to find desirable. Women who are told repeatedly that “nice guys are boring” may learn to discount kindness in the early stages of dating.

Social media complicates matters. Short videos and dating advice influencers popularize ideas about “alpha” and “beta” men, with confident claims about what women secretly want. These claims rarely come with evidence, and they often contradict the research summarized above, which finds that dominance is not generally preferred and that prestige and kindness matter. The audience for such content includes many young men who are told that being aggressive is the way to succeed in dating.

Context also matters in the other direction. Women who have experienced danger or instability may value protective qualities more, and societies with higher levels of violence or insecurity may place a higher value on physical strength. Protection is a real need; the question is whether the protector is safe to be around.

Imagine Theo, 19, who learns from videos that being cold and unavailable is the secret to attraction. He tries it on dates, and the dates go badly. A friend tells him that she liked him more when he asked questions and laughed. He rewatches nothing.

The stereotype survives because it is a story, and stories are sticky. The data are more modest.

What does the “tough guy” script cost men themselves?

A great deal. The pressure to appear tough shapes how men handle emotions, health and relationships, and the costs show up in loneliness, untreated depression and risk-taking. The research on masculine norms offers a framework for understanding the script.

Psychologist James R. Mahalik and colleagues developed the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory in 2003 to measure how strongly men adhere to a set of traditional masculine norms, including emotional control, winning, risk-taking, violence, dominance, playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuals and pursuit of status. Subsequent research has linked high conformity to certain norms, such as emotional control and self-reliance, with poorer mental health outcomes and reluctance to seek help, though associations vary by norm, and some norms (such as striving for success) can be positive.

The implication for this topic is that “tough” can be a costume men feel pressured to wear. A man who believes that he must never show vulnerability may struggle to talk about stress, grief or anxiety, even with a partner. That can make him seem strong and mysterious in the early weeks and distant and frustrating in the long run. The trait that attracted his partner becomes the obstacle to intimacy.

Research on men’s help-seeking suggests that traditional masculine norms are associated with lower rates of seeking mental health care, and men have higher suicide rates than women in many countries, which some researchers link in part to these norms, though the causes are complex. If you or someone you know is struggling, seeking help is a sign of strength, not weakness, and a primary care doctor, therapist or counselor can help.

There is a more hopeful side. Surveys and studies find that many women value emotional expressiveness and partnership in men, and that men who can talk about feelings often have more satisfying relationships. Men who are secure enough to be kind and vulnerable are not weak; they tend to be more resilient. Protective strength and tenderness can coexist.

It also helps to separate stoicism, the ability to stay calm and function under stress, from suppression, the habit of hiding all feelings. The first can be valuable; the second tends to cause harm. Many of the best-regarded “tough” people, from nurses to firefighters, talk openly with colleagues about what the job costs.

Consider Marcus, 46, a construction foreman admired for his steadiness. After a close call on site, he told his crew he’d been shaken. Two of them thanked him later. Nobody thought he was less tough.

The cultural question may not be why women like tough men, but why we taught men that tenderness was a risk.

How can you tell strength from control in a partner?

Look at how he treats people who cannot reward or punish him, and how he handles disagreement, limits and your independence. Real strength makes a partner feel safer. Control makes a partner feel smaller. The two can look similar in the early weeks, so it helps to know what to watch for.

Behaviors that suggest strength and security:

He listens, even when he disagrees. He admits mistakes and apologizes without defensiveness. He respects your friends, your work and your decisions. He is calm in conflict and does not use fear, silence or sulking as weapons. He is protective in ways that you want and does not overrule your judgment.

Behaviors that suggest control, which can escalate:

• Jealousy framed as love: monitoring your phone, questioning where you were, objecting to friends or events.
• Intimidation: raised voice, slammed doors, punching walls, threats or looming over you during arguments.
• Isolation: criticizing your family and friends, making them feel unwelcome, discouraging you from seeing them.
• Disrespect that is dismissed as humor: put-downs, mockery in front of others, then “you’re too sensitive.”
• Blame-shifting: nothing is his fault, and everything that goes wrong is a response to something you did.
• Rapid intensity: pressure to commit or move in, followed by anger when you set limits.

Any single item on the second list does not prove abuse, and people can behave badly under stress and change. But a pattern, especially one that grows, deserves serious attention. Controlling behavior, even without physical violence, is a recognized form of intimate partner abuse and is associated with harm to mental health, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress.

If you are afraid of a partner, or if you notice that you are changing your behavior to avoid his anger, speak to someone you trust, a counselor or a domestic abuse service. If you are in immediate danger, contact local emergency services. Leaving a controlling partner can be the most dangerous time, so planning with an advocate is important.

It is also fair to say that attraction to confident, protective men is not a flaw and does not mean that you will end up with a controlling one. The goal is not to distrust strength, only to look beyond the display to the character.

Think of Imani, 30, who noticed that her new partner’s “protectiveness” meant that she stopped seeing her friends. When she mentioned this, he said she was ungrateful. She spoke to her sister the next day. Calling it by its name was the first step.

How can you choose a partner with real strength, and what if you keep repeating the same pattern?

Start by looking at behavior over time and at how you feel around the person. Chemistry matters, but it is not a reliable guide on its own, particularly if your past relationships have followed a painful script. The following steps can help you slow down and choose with more information.

1. Watch the small things. How does he treat servers, family, animals and people who cannot help him? Courtesy to the powerless is one of the best predictors of how he will treat you when the honeymoon ends.
2. Notice your body. Do you feel calm and like yourself, or anxious and on alert? Excitement and anxiety can feel similar, but steady comfort is a better sign than a roller coaster.
3. Test conflict early. Disagree about something small and see how he responds. Does he listen, adjust, or punish you with sarcasm or silence?
4. Look for prestige, not dominance. Does he earn respect through skill, generosity and reliability, or by intimidating others and winning every argument?
5. Check consistency. Do his words, actions and stories match over weeks? Charm without consistency deserves caution.
6. Get an outside view. Describe the relationship to a trusted friend or family member and listen to their reaction. People close to you often see patterns you cannot.

If you repeatedly find yourself drawn to partners who are unavailable, controlling or unkind, consider talking to a therapist. Approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy, schema therapy and attachment-informed therapy can help you understand why certain dynamics feel familiar and practice different choices. The point is not to blame yourself. It is to widen your options.

A few cautions apply. Do not swing to the opposite extreme and decide that all confident men are dangerous or that all gentle men are boring. People are not types, and many secure, kind partners also have presence and drive. And do not treat research on averages as a rulebook for your own life: preferences vary, and what you want may change as you do.

For the men reading: being tough is not the problem; being tough at the expense of being honest, kind and curious is. The qualities that research associates with lasting attraction, such as warmth, reliability, humor and respect, are available to anyone willing to practice them.

Picture Naomi, 35, who after two difficult relationships made a rule: she would not decide about someone until she had seen him disappointed, tired and wrong. The third man she dated handled all three with grace. She says it was the least dramatic start of her life and the best.

The better question may be what you want your partner to be strong for.

FAQs about Why Women Prefer Tough Guys

Do women really prefer tough guys?

Not as a general rule. Research suggests that women find confidence, competence and kindness attractive, and that preferences for dominant, aggressive men are limited to certain contexts, such as athletic competition or short-term attraction. A 2008 study by Jeffrey Snyder and colleagues found that women preferred men with prestige, meaning status earned through skills and achievements, over men who used intimidation, especially for long-term relationships. What looks like a taste for toughness is often a taste for competence and security.

Why do women seem to fall for bad boys?

Several things can create that impression. Confident, charming men may make strong first impressions, and some people find excitement and unpredictability thrilling. Research on the Dark Triad suggests that men with these traits tend to pursue short-term relationships and sometimes succeed at them, which makes them visible. Attachment patterns, learned in earlier relationships, can also draw some people to emotionally unavailable partners. But none of this means that women generally prefer bad boys, and many have learned painfully to avoid them.

What is the difference between dominance and prestige?

Dominance means gaining influence through intimidation, force or threat, while prestige means gaining influence through skills, knowledge or achievements that others freely admire. The distinction comes from anthropologists Joseph Henrich and Francisco Gil-White, who argued that humans evolved both status systems. Research on mate preferences suggests that women generally prefer prestigious men over dominant ones, particularly for long-term partners. A person can look tough and still be prestigious, such as a skilled rescuer, but domineering behavior toward a partner is a different matter.

Do women say one thing and do another when it comes to attraction?

Often, yes, and so do men. Studies using speed dating have found that people’s stated ideals before the event did not predict whom they actually liked and chose during the event. In a 2008 study, Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel found no sex differences in how attractiveness and earning prospects predicted real romantic interest, even though participants had stated traditional preferences beforehand. This suggests that people may lack insight into what attracts them, and that questionnaires about ideal partners reveal beliefs more than behavior.

Why do some women keep choosing emotionally unavailable men?

Often because of learned patterns about closeness. People with an anxious attachment style may be drawn to partners who are distant, because intermittent attention feels intense and familiar, particularly if a caregiver was unpredictable. This is sometimes called the anxious-avoidant trap. The evidence for a general tendency is modest, and attachment styles can change with experience and therapy. Understanding your pattern, with the help of a therapist if needed, makes it easier to choose partners who offer steady warmth.

Are narcissists and psychopaths more attractive to women?

Not in general. Research indicates that men with Dark Triad traits report more casual partners and more interest in short-term mating, and that narcissistic charm can create positive first impressions in brief interactions. But the more harmful traits, such as manipulation, callousness and exploitation, tend to emerge over time, and they predict poor outcomes for partners. Short-term success is not the same as being preferred, and many people find these traits unappealing once they become visible.

How can I tell the difference between a strong partner and a controlling one?

A strong partner makes you feel safer, listens even when he disagrees, respects your independence and handles conflict calmly. A controlling partner makes you feel smaller: he monitors you, isolates you from friends, uses intimidation or put-downs, blames you for his reactions and reacts with anger when you set limits. A single behavior does not prove abuse, but a growing pattern deserves attention. If you feel afraid, talk to someone you trust or a domestic abuse service.

Does the tough-guy image harm men too?

Yes. Research on masculine norms shows that strong adherence to norms such as emotional control and self-reliance is associated with lower help-seeking and poorer mental health in some studies, and the pressure to appear invulnerable can make intimacy difficult. Men who can talk about their feelings tend to have more satisfying relationships. Strength and tenderness are compatible, and many admired people in demanding jobs discuss openly what the work costs them. If a man is struggling, talking to a doctor, therapist or counselor is a sensible step.

Bibliography

• Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264.
• Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573-587.
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
• Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165-196.
• Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23(1), 5-18.
• Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3-25.
• Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15(4), 425-444.
• Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(38), 15011-15016.