The many voices of Darwin's descendants: reply to Schmitt (2014).
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
Commentary and theoretical rebuttal discussing prior meta-analytic findings without presenting new primary human trial data
PubMed 24773504 · doi:10.1037/a0036111
What was done
This paper is an author reply and theoretical elaboration responding to a critique by Schmitt (2014) regarding a prior meta-analysis by Eastwick et al. (2014). The authors defend their methodology and evolutionary framework assessing whether sex-differentiated mate preferences predict actual romantic attraction and relationship outcomes toward real-life opposite-sex targets, and address alternative hypotheses through theoretical argument and reanalyses of their existing meta-analytic dataset.
What was found
The abstract provides no numerical data, effect sizes, or confidence intervals. The authors report that their prior meta-analysis and subsequent reanalyses showed no evidence for sex-differentiated romantic desires or relationship satisfaction in either mate selection or established relationship contexts, and found no empirical support for Schmitt's alternative functional hypotheses regarding physical attractiveness and earning prospects.
Why it matters
The paper clarifies that multiple evolutionary psychology frameworks exist regarding human mating, arguing that stated mate preferences do not reliably translate into sex differences in real-world romantic evaluations or pair-bond maintenance.
Limits
As a commentary and reply piece, this paper presents no new primary experimental or observational data. Specific sample sizes, effect estimates, and statistical parameters are not reported in the abstract, and the debate centers largely on differing theoretical interpretations of previously published meta-analytic findings.