These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16594832)

  • 1. Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why.
    Li NP; Kenrick DT
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2006 Mar; 90(3):468-89. PubMed ID: 16594832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sex differences in short-term mate preferences and behavioral mimicry: a semi-naturalistic experiment.
    van Straaten I; Engels RC; Finkenauer C; Holland RW
    Arch Sex Behav; 2008 Dec; 37(6):902-11. PubMed ID: 17682936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Homosexual mating preferences from an evolutionary perspective: sexual selection theory revisited.
    Gobrogge KL; Perkins PS; Baker JH; Balcer KD; Breedlove SM; Klump KL
    Arch Sex Behav; 2007 Oct; 36(5):717-23. PubMed ID: 17674179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sex differences in sexual psychology produce sex-similar preferences for a short-term mate.
    Shackelford TK; Goetz AT; LaMunyon CW; Quintus BJ; Weekes-Shackelford VA
    Arch Sex Behav; 2004 Aug; 33(4):405-12. PubMed ID: 15162086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Early psychosocial stress affects men's relationship length.
    Koehler N; Chisholm JS
    J Sex Res; 2009; 46(4):366-74. PubMed ID: 19253135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection.
    Li NP; Yong JC; Tov W; Sng O; Fletcher GJ; Valentine KA; Jiang YF; Balliet D
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2013 Nov; 105(5):757-76. PubMed ID: 23915041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Romantic preferences in Brazilian undergraduate students: from the short term to the long term.
    Castro FN; de Araújo Lopes F
    J Sex Res; 2011 Sep; 48(5):479-85. PubMed ID: 20830643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sex differences in post-coital behaviors in long- and short-term mating: an evolutionary perspective.
    Hughes SM; Kruger DJ
    J Sex Res; 2011 Sep; 48(5):496-505. PubMed ID: 20799133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs.
    Li NP; Bailey JM; Kenrick DT; Linsenmeier JA
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2002 Jun; 82(6):947-55. PubMed ID: 12051582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The role of ego-identity status in mating preferences.
    Dunkel CS; Papini DR
    Adolescence; 2005; 40(159):489-501. PubMed ID: 16268128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Experimental Evidence for Sex Differences in Sexual Variety Preferences: Support for the Coolidge Effect in Humans.
    Hughes SM; Aung T; Harrison MA; LaFayette JN; Gallup GG
    Arch Sex Behav; 2021 Feb; 50(2):495-509. PubMed ID: 32440927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sexual dimorphism of male face shape, partnership status and the temporal context of relationship sought modulate women's preferences for direct gaze.
    Conway CA; Jones BC; DeBruine LM; Little AC
    Br J Psychol; 2010 Feb; 101(Pt 1):109-21. PubMed ID: 19460236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Changes in women's mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle.
    Gangestad SW; Garver-Apgar CE; Simpson JA; Cousins AJ
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2007 Jan; 92(1):151-63. PubMed ID: 17201549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Why humans have sex.
    Meston CM; Buss DM
    Arch Sex Behav; 2007 Aug; 36(4):477-507. PubMed ID: 17610060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Gender differences in affective responses to sexual rejection.
    de Graaf H; Sandfort TG
    Arch Sex Behav; 2004 Aug; 33(4):395-403. PubMed ID: 15162085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Men's strategic preferences for femininity in female faces.
    Little AC; Jones BC; Feinberg DR; Perrett DI
    Br J Psychol; 2014 Aug; 105(3):364-81. PubMed ID: 25040006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system.
    Sundie JM; Kenrick DT; Griskevicius V; Tybur JM; Vohs KD; Beal DJ
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2011 Apr; 100(4):664-80. PubMed ID: 21038972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Intra-sex Variation in Human Mating Strategies: Different People, Different Tactics.
    Castro FN; Hattori WT; de Araújo Lopes F
    Arch Sex Behav; 2015 Aug; 44(6):1729-36. PubMed ID: 25896490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Results of an explorative empirical study on human mating in Germany: handsome men, not high-status men, succeed in courtship.
    Pashos A; Niemitz C
    Anthropol Anz; 2003 Sep; 61(3):331-41. PubMed ID: 14524006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection.
    Fletcher GJ; Tither JM; O'Loughlin C; Friesen M; Overall N
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2004 Jun; 30(6):659-72. PubMed ID: 15155031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.