Debunking the pop science—and what the research really shows
If you’ve spent time in online dating discussions, you’ve likely encountered evolutionary psychology explaining attraction. Men prioritize youth and beauty for fertility. Women seek resources for parental investment. Alpha males. Ovulation effects. Hypergamy.
Much of it is wrong—or at least, dramatically oversimplified. Here’s what the research actually shows.
Misconception #1:
Women’s preferences shift dramatically during ovulation
A prominent idea in evolutionary psychology was the “ovulatory shift hypothesis”—women become more attracted to masculine, dominant men during fertile periods. This inspired claims about craving “alpha males” while ovulating. However, recent large-scale studies often fail to replicate strong effects.
A 2021 study tracked 257 women across 1,028 sessions, using salivary hormones and luteinizing hormone tests for conception risk. Researchers found only weak evidence for fertility-related attraction increases to male bodies, with no consistent hormone links. Multiple preregistered studies from 2018–2025 found no robust evidence for preferences shifting toward more masculine voices, faces, or bodies during fertile periods.
Meta-analyses revealed earlier effects often stemmed from research artifacts—declining in published work, tied to imprecise fertility measures, and showing publication bias.
What reliably changes during fertility? General sexual desire rises. That’s it. Not partner preferences—just libido intensity.
Misconception #2:
Men want youth and beauty; women want resources—full stop
This holds a kernel of truth amid heavy oversimplification.
Cross-cultural research by David Buss and others reveals averages: men emphasize physical attractiveness more; women emphasize resource potential more. These patterns span dozens of cultures.
Yet “on average” conceals huge variation. Within-sex differences exceed between-sex ones. Many men value kindness and intelligence over looks. Many women value attraction over earnings. Context is key—preferences vary between short-term flings and long-term partners.
Preferences are also condition-dependent. People calibrate mate choices to self-market value and local ecology. Resource scarcity heightens women’s resource preferences. Pathogen prevalence boosts symmetry preferences for all, given that even facial and bodily features are often associated with physical health and immune system strength. Traits aren’t fixed, though, and adapt to circumstances.
Misconception #3:
Evolution explains everything
Pop evolutionary psychology portrays behavior as rigidly fixed to our Pleistocene ancestry. We’re “wired,” “programmed,” or “hardwired” for specific responses.
Actual evolutionary psychologists reject this idea. A 2022 survey of 581 researchers found that nearly all agree that developmental environments substantially shape adult psychology and behavior. The field rejects crude genetic determinism.
The nuanced view: humans evolved flexible mechanisms responding to inputs. We didn’t evolve fixed trait preferences—we evolved the capacity to learn signals of mate quality in local environments. Cars signaled wealth in 1955; today, not especially. Suits signal competence in law firms and cluelessness in tech startups. Attraction tracks culturally variable signals.
Culture is central. Evolution enables attraction to high status—but culture defines status. It enables body-type preferences—but culture links types to health/fertility. Biology and culture intertwine.
Misconception #4:
The orgasm gap is just cultural
Here, biology plays a significant role—and recognizing it isn’t sexist; it’s evidence-based.
Studies show heterosexual women orgasm less often than heterosexual men in partnered sex. Large surveys find ~95% of heterosexual men versus ~65% of heterosexual women report usual/always orgasms.
Some claim the gap is purely cultural—from selfish partners or socialized silence on needs. These contribute. Yet biology factors in.
Women orgasm more with familiar, trusted partners than casual ones. Foreplay length matters too, as well as emotional bonds. Relationship satisfaction correlates with female orgasm rates.
Evolutionarily, female orgasm may partly serve mate assessment—rewarding pleasure for investment via time, attention, and attunement. This doesn’t prohibit casual sex, but physiology seems to differ significantly between the sexes.
What evolutionary psychology gets right
Beyond pop distortions, evolutionary psychology provides useful insights:
Attraction targets costly signals. We respond to what traits indicate. Generosity signals abundance. Confidence signals competence. Humor signals intelligence. Effective signals are hard to fake—hence authentic growth outperforms tactics.
Context drives outcomes. Evolved psychology cues from ecology. Strategies vary by setting, partner type, subculture status markers.
Sex differences are modest. Averages differ in some preferences/behaviors. But they’re tendencies, not rules. Individualizing beyond group averages avoids errors.
Biology and culture both shape us. Mating psychology blends flexible evolved systems with cultural expression. This synergy lets us align with nature amid cultural variation.
The bottom line
Skepticize “evolutionary psychology” claims prescribing partner expectations or behaviors. The field is legitimate science, but pop versions cherry-pick unreplicated or outdated results for agendas.
Evolution granted remarkable flexibility—to learn, adapt, and respond to social worlds. The good news is that no ancestral trap binds you. Attractions blend biology, experience, culture, and choice.
Use that flexibility wisely.
To find out more about how evolution shaped more than a century of dating and relationship trends check out my book Costly Signals: The Evolution of Dating Advice.
Leave a Reply