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 *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28401792)

  • 1. Assessment of Long-Term Mate Preferences in Iran.
    Atari M
    Evol Psychol; 2017; 15(2):1474704917702459. PubMed ID: 28401792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Psychometric Evaluation and Cultural Correlates of the Mate Retention Inventory-Short Form (MRI-SF) in Iran.
    Atari M; Barbaro N; Shackelford TK; Chegeni R
    Evol Psychol; 2017 Jan; 15(1):1474704917695267. PubMed ID: 28248556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Self-Perceived Mate Value, Facial Attractiveness, and Mate Preferences: Do Desirable Men Want It All?
    Arnocky S
    Evol Psychol; 2018; 16(1):1474704918763271. PubMed ID: 29534596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effects of control of resources on magnitudes of sex differences in human mate preferences.
    Moore F; Cassidy C; Perrett DI
    Evol Psychol; 2010 Dec; 8(4):720-35. PubMed ID: 22947829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Netflix and Chill? What Sex Differences Can Tell Us About Mate Preferences in (Hypothetical) Booty-Call Relationships.
    March E; Van Doorn G; Grieve R
    Evol Psychol; 2018; 16(4):1474704918812138. PubMed ID: 30428700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication.
    Walter KV; Conroy-Beam D; Buss DM; Asao K; Sorokowska A; Sorokowski P; Aavik T; Akello G; Alhabahba MM; Alm C; Amjad N; Anjum A; Atama CS; Atamtürk Duyar D; Ayebare R; Batres C; Bendixen M; Bensafia A; Bizumic B; Boussena M; Butovskaya M; Can S; Cantarero K; Carrier A; Cetinkaya H; Croy I; Cueto RM; Czub M; Dronova D; Dural S; Duyar I; Ertugrul B; Espinosa A; Estevan I; Esteves CS; Fang L; Frackowiak T; Garduño JC; González KU; Guemaz F; Gyuris P; Halamová M; Herak I; Horvat M; Hromatko I; Hui CM; Jaafar JL; Jiang F; Kafetsios K; Kavčič T; Kennair LEO; Kervyn N; Khanh Ha TT; Khilji IA; Köbis NC; Lan HM; Láng A; Lennard GR; León E; Lindholm T; Linh TT; Lopez G; Van Luot N; Mailhos A; Manesi Z; Martinez R; McKerchar SL; Meskó N; Misra G; Monaghan C; Mora EC; Moya-Garófano A; Musil B; Natividade JC; Niemczyk A; Nizharadze G; Oberzaucher E; Oleszkiewicz A; Omar-Fauzee MS; Onyishi IE; Özener B; Pagani AF; Pakalniskiene V; Parise M; Pazhoohi F; Pisanski A; Pisanski K; Ponciano E; Popa C; Prokop P; Rizwan M; Sainz M; Salkičević S; Sargautyte R; Sarmány-Schuller I; Schmehl S; Sharad S; Siddiqui RS; Simonetti F; Stoyanova SY; Tadinac M; Varella MAC; Vauclair CM; Vega LD; Widarini DA; Yoo G; Zat'ková M; Zupančič M
    Psychol Sci; 2020 Apr; 31(4):408-423. PubMed ID: 32196435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sex differences in human mate preferences vary across sex ratios.
    Walter KV; Conroy-Beam D; Buss DM; Asao K; Sorokowska A; Sorokowski P; Aavik T; Akello G; Alhabahba MM; Alm C; Amjad N; Anjum A; Atama CS; Duyar DA; Ayebare R; Batres C; Bendixen M; Bensafia A; Bizumic B; Boussena M; Butovskaya M; Can S; Cantarero K; Carrier A; Cetinkaya H; Croy I; Cueto RM; Czub M; Dronova D; Dural S; Duyar I; Ertugrul B; Espinosa A; Estevan I; Esteves CS; Fang L; Frackowiak T; Garduño JC; González KU; Guemaz F; Gyuris P; Halamová M; Herak I; Horvat M; Hromatko I; Hui CM; Jaafar JL; Jiang F; Kafetsios K; Kavčič T; Ottesen Kennair LE; Kervyn N; Khanh Ha TT; Khilji IA; Köbis NC; Lan HM; Láng A; Lennard GR; León E; Lindholm T; Linh TT; Lopez G; Luot NV; Mailhos A; Manesi Z; Martinez R; McKerchar SL; Meskó N; Misra G; Monaghan C; Mora EC; Moya-Garófano A; Musil B; Natividade JC; Niemczyk A; Nizharadze G; Oberzaucher E; Oleszkiewicz A; Omar-Fauzee MS; Onyishi IE; Özener B; Pagani AF; Pakalniskiene V; Parise M; Pazhoohi F; Pisanski A; Pisanski K; Ponciano E; Popa C; Prokop P; Rizwan M; Sainz M; Salkičević S; Sargautyte R; Sarmány-Schuller I; Schmehl S; Sharad S; Siddiqui RS; Simonetti F; Stoyanova SY; Tadinac M; Correa Varella MA; Vauclair CM; Vega LD; Widarini DA; Yoo G; Zaťková MM; Zupančič M
    Proc Biol Sci; 2021 Jul; 288(1955):20211115. PubMed ID: 34284630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. More than just a pretty face and a hot body: multiple cues in mate-choice.
    Jonason PK; Raulston T; Rotolo A
    J Soc Psychol; 2012; 152(2):174-84. PubMed ID: 22468419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Coalitional Mate Retention Inventory (CMRI).
    Fallahchai R; Babaeizad A; Pham M; Eftekharian A
    Evol Psychol; 2019; 17(2):1474704919856795. PubMed ID: 31242763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The long and short of mistress relationships: Sex-differentiated mate preferences reflect a compromise of mating ideals.
    Choy BKC; Li NP; Tan K
    J Pers; 2023 Apr; 91(2):383-399. PubMed ID: 35567542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Are Sex Differences in Preferences for Physical Attractiveness and Good Earning Capacity in Potential Mates Smaller in Countries With Greater Gender Equality?
    Zhang L; Lee AJ; DeBruine LM; Jones BC
    Evol Psychol; 2019; 17(2):1474704919852921. PubMed ID: 31146580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences.
    Schwarz S; Hassebrauck M
    Hum Nat; 2012 Dec; 23(4):447-66. PubMed ID: 22941269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effects of religious veiling on Muslim men's attractiveness ratings of Muslim women.
    Pazhoohi F; Hosseinchari M
    Arch Sex Behav; 2014 Aug; 43(6):1083-6. PubMed ID: 24464549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Norwegian Men and Women Value Similar Mate Traits in Short-Term Relationships.
    Mehmetoglu M; Määttänen I
    Evol Psychol; 2020; 18(4):1474704920979623. PubMed ID: 33371743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a New Mating Effort Questionnaire.
    Albert G; Richardson GB; Arnocky S; Senveli Z; Hodges-Simeon CR
    Arch Sex Behav; 2021 Feb; 50(2):511-530. PubMed ID: 32839933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sexually dimorphic preference for altruism in the opposite sex according to recipient.
    Oda R; Shibata A; Kiyonari T; Takeda M; Matsumoto-Oda A
    Br J Psychol; 2013 Nov; 104(4):577-84. PubMed ID: 24094285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. What Do Different People Look for in a Partner? Effects of Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Mating Strategies on Partner Preferences.
    Takayanagi JFGB; Siqueira JO; Silveira PSP; Valentova JV
    Arch Sex Behav; 2024 Mar; 53(3):981-1000. PubMed ID: 38413532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How Sexually Dimorphic Are Human Mate Preferences?
    Conroy-Beam D; Buss DM; Pham MN; Shackelford TK
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2015 Aug; 41(8):1082-93. PubMed ID: 26068718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Mate retention behavior of men and women in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
    Vanderlaan DP; Vasey PL
    Arch Sex Behav; 2008 Aug; 37(4):572-85. PubMed ID: 17216358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.