Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-4jdj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-03T07:28:39.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The support-deficit perspective is now the parsimonious explanation for gender differences in human mating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2026

Paul W. Eastwick Open the ORCID record for Paul W. Eastwick [Opens in a new window]
Paul W. Eastwick*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA eastwick@ucdavis.edu https://pauleastwick.com/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Men’s support deficits explain gender differences classically associated with parental investment theory. That is, men may have sex on their minds not because the costs are low, but because sex is a primary route for constructing something profound that they lack: an emotionally fulfilling relationship. The breadth of findings consistent with the support-deficit explanation has made it the parsimonious one.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e99
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. ( 1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conley, T. D., & Klein, V. ( 2022). Women get worse sex: A confound in the explanation of gender differences in sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 960–978.10.1177/17456916211041598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eastwick, P. W. ( 2026). Bonded by evolution: The new science of love and connection. Crown.Google Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Joel, S. ( 2023). Mate evaluation theory. Psychological Review, 130, 211–241.10.1037/rev0000360CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Simpson, J. A. ( 2019). Relationship trajectories: A meta-theoretical framework and two theoretical applications. Psychological Inquiry, 30, 1–28.10.1080/1047840X.2019.1577072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Keneski, E., Morgan, T. A., MacDonald, M. A., & Huang, S. A. ( 2018). What do short-term and long-term relationships look like? Building the relationship coordination and strategic timing (ReCAST) model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 747–781.10.1037/xge0000428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G. J. O., Kerr, P. S., Li, N. P., & Valentine, K. A. ( 2014). Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very early stages of mate selection standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(4), 540–550.10.1177/0146167213519481CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankenbach, J., Weber, M., Loschelder, D. D., Kilger, H., & Friese, M. ( 2022). Sex drive: Theoretical conceptualization and meta-analytic review of gender differences. Psychological Bulletin, 148(9–10), 621–661.10.1037/bul0000366CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerrard, B. ( 2021). Why Do Women Have the Upper Hand on Tinder? Explaining the two worlds of the dating app. Retrieved from https://thebolditalic.com/the-two-worlds-of-tinder-f1c34e800db4 Google Scholar
Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. ( 2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 453–458.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, N. P., & Meltzer, A. L. ( 2015). The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: Reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 89–106.10.1037/ebs0000036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. ( 2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of sexual behavior, 36, 477–507.10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prum, R. O. ( 2018). The evolution of beauty: How Darwin’s forgotten theory of mate choice shapes the animal world-and us. Vintage.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. ( 1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. G., (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.Google Scholar