Recall a classic love story between two people that you have read

Past, Present, and Why People Struggle to Establish
and Maintain Intimate Relationships

Menelaos Apostolou
University of Nicosia

Many people face difficulties or fail completely to establish and maintain long-term
intimate relationships. This is puzzling because, given the evolutionary importance of
mating, we would expect that evolutionary forces would have endowed most people
with adaptations that promote success in intimate relationships. This does not appear to
have happened, and the present paper explores the reasons why. In particular, on the
basis of anthropological and historical evidence, it is argued that the mechanisms
involved in mate choice were shaped by selection forces in a context where mating was
regulated. The situation in which individuals have to find mates almost completely on
their own, constitutes therefore an evolutionarily novel situation for which selection
forces had not sufficient time to produce adaptive changes. The present paper nomi-
nates several mechanisms involved in mate choice which may not have been optimized
to deal effectively with the demands of the contemporary mating context. This per-
spective can promote a deeper understanding of the difficulties people face in intimate
relationships, and provide a sound basis for therapy to address them.

Keywords: mate choice, parental choice, intimate relationships, difficulties in intimate relationships

Many individuals find it difficult or even im-
possible to establish and maintain long-term
intimate relationships (Miller, 2011; Osgood,
Ruth, Eccles, Jacobs, & Barber, 2005). For in-
stance, a survey of 14,000 unmarried Japanese
people aged 18 –34 years found that 61% of
men and 49% of women were single (The Four-
teenth Japanese National Fertility Survey,
2010). However, more than 80% of single peo-
ple in this sample indicated that they would like
to marry at some point; one of the most fre-
quently cited reasons for not having done so
already was: “not knowing how to start a rela-
tionship with a member of the opposite sex.” As
a consequence of difficulties in maintaining and
establishing intimate relationships, many indi-
viduals have to spend a considerable part of
their adult lives single (Laumann, 2004; Osgood
et al., 2005), while others never marry or have
children although they would have liked to do
so (Miller, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

In sexually reproducing species such as our
own, those who fail in the mating domain are
selected out of the population (Buss, 2003),
which suggests that evolutionary forces
should have endowed most people with adap-
tations that promote success in intimate rela-
tionships. This raises the question of why
many individuals face difficulties in this do-
main. There are at least five evolutionarily
informed explanations that can potentially
provide an answer.

To begin with, the choice of a partner has
considerable consequences for biological fitness
(i.e., reproductive success); for instance, choos-
ing a partner who suffers from a serious illness
is unlikely to result in a long-lasting relation-
ship. Accordingly, selection has endowed indi-
viduals with specific mate preferences which
enable them to screen prospective mates to ex-
clude those who compromise their fitness (Buss,
1989; Buss, 2003). Individuals with serious
health problems, defects, or deformities will not
appeal to anyone’s mate preferences, and they
are therefore likely to be excluded from mating.

A second explanation has to do with sexual
orientation. Although there has been intense
theoretical speculation about the evolutionary
purpose of homosexuality (Apostolou, 2013;

This article was published Online First June 8, 2015.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to Menelaos Apostolou, Department of Social Sci-
ences, University of Nicosia, 46 Makedonitissas Avenue,
1700 Nicosia, Cyprus. E-mail: [email protected]

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences © 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 9, No. 4, 257–269 2330-2925/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000052

257

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000052

Kuhle & Radtke, 2013), there is currently little
agreement on this subject. The fact remains,
however, that a part of the population has an
exclusively or primarily homosexual orientation
(LeVay, 2012). This could potentially account
for some proportion of those who face difficul-
ties in intimate relationships: nonheterosexual
people who are afraid of the social conse-
quences of their sexual orientation may choose
to hide it and stay out of the mating market, or
they may enter in heterosexual relationships
which soon fail.

A third explanation has to do with the avail-
ability of potential mates. In many societies
high status men monopolize women (i.e., po-
lygyny is practiced), leaving many low status
men without a partner (Frayser, 1985). More-
over, because it is usually men who go to war,
prolonged military conflict can result in many
men being away from home or dying, and thus,
not being available as mates. In this scenario,
women who do not score high on the qualities
that men value in potential mates have an in-
creasing probability of remaining single. These
cases have the effect that individuals may strug-
gle to form intimate relationships because the
availability of eligible mates is limited; how-
ever, polygyny is not practiced in postindustrial
societies, and recently there have not been any
prolonged large scale wars.

A fourth possible explanation is that selection
forces have favored a reproductive strategy by
which some individuals opt-out of mating and
divert their resources into helping their genetic
relatives to survive and reproduce. This was
proposed as an explanation for homosexuality
(Wilson, 1975), but it failed to find empirical
support (Bobrow & Bailey, 2001; Rahman &
Hull, 2005). At present, there is little evidence
to support this hypothesis, but were it to apply,
some individuals would primarily be interested
in helping their families rather than being ac-
tively interested in forming intimate relation-
ships, because this would interfere with the re-
productive-helper strategy.

These hypotheses notwithstanding, there are
a considerable number of people who have no
physical deformities or serious illnesses, have a
heterosexual orientation and live in a context in
which potential mates are available, and who
actively wish to have a long-lasting intimate
relationship; yet, they find doing so difficult or
impossible. This is all the more surprising be-

cause many of these people not only do not have
serious defects, but actually have traits which
are considered desirable by the opposite sex.
For example, one study followed more than
1,000 individuals over time, and found that a
significant proportion of those who were single
were highly educated and apparently successful
in their careers (Osgood et al., 2005)—traits
which are valued in a mate (Buss, 2003). More
than half of the singles in this study reported
wanting to be in a relationship and being unsat-
isfied with their dating and romantic lives.

This paper argues that some of the difficulties
people face in intimate relationships can be
accounted for by a fifth explanation, which is
based on the mismatch between ancestral and
modern environments. More specifically, it is
argued that selection forces have shaped the
mechanisms involved in establishing and main-
taining intimate relationships in an environment
very different from the one prevailing in mod-
ern postindustrial societies and, as a conse-
quence, in several instances, these mechanisms
fail to meet the demands of the modern envi-
ronment, resulting in difficulties in establishing
and maintaining intimate relationships.

The present paper develops this argument, by
employing anthropological and historical evi-
dence in order to reconstruct the ancestral en-
vironment, and demonstrate that the evolution-
ary pressures that have shaped mate choice
mechanisms were different from the ones pre-
vailing today. Several mechanisms which may
not be able to meet the demands of the modern
environment are then nominated. Finally, impli-
cations for therapy and ways to address the
shortcomings of the nominated mechanisms are
explored.

The Ancestral Context

The genus Homo appeared on earth approxi-
mately two million years ago, and for most of
this period our ancestors lived in small bands of
hunters and gatherers (Lee & Devore, 1968);
thus, most of human evolution took place in this
context (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). About
10,000 years ago, the agropastoral revolution
took place, and most of our ancestors shifted to
a nonnomadic life and a mode of subsistence
based on agriculture and the herding of animals
(Bellwood, 2004). Human societies were to be
transformed again with the Industrial Revolu-

258 APOSTOLOU

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

tion, which began in 18th century Britain. But
the Industrial Revolution took place too re-
cently to have significant evolutionary conse-
quences, meaning that the adaptations we carry
with us today were shaped by evolutionary
forces operating in an ancestral preindustrial
context. Accordingly, identifying the mating
patterns prevailing in such an environment en-
ables a better understanding of the evolutionary
pressures that have shaped the mechanisms in-
volved in mating, and enables us to identify
differences between post- and preindustrial so-
cieties, which are likely to result in several
mechanisms involved in mating not being able
to deal effectively with the demands of the
postindustrial context.

We lack direct information on ancestral
hunter and gatherer mating patterns because
these societies did not leave behind any written
records pertaining to the first and the longer
period of human evolution. Nevertheless, we
have a good source of information, namely,
contemporary hunters and gatherers whose mat-
ing patterns have been studied by anthropolo-
gists. The mating patterns typically found in
these societies are likely to be characteristic of
the hunter-gatherer way of life and, conse-
quently, are likely to be similar to those in
ancestral hunter-gatherer societies (Apostolou,
2014; Ember, 1978).

Anthropological evidence indicates that in
these societies mate choice was regulated
(Broude & Green, 1983; Stephens, 1963). In
particular, one study collected evidence from
a sample of 190 contemporary foraging soci-
eties and analyzed their mating patterns
(Apostolou, 2007), finding that the most com-
mon mode of long-term mating (in approxi-
mately 70% of the cases) was arranged mar-
riage, where parents choose spouses for their
children. Furthermore, in the vast majority of
cases, men, mainly fathers, were in control of
marriage arrangements. Courtship, where
children choose their own spouses with little
input from their parents, was the primary
mode of marriage in less than 5% of cases.
Phylogenetic analysis, which attempts to re-
construct the conditions prevailing in ances-
tral societies, has provided additional evi-
dence that the patterns of mating found across
contemporary hunters and gatherers (e.g., ar-
ranged marriage) were also prevalent in an-

cestral ones (Walker, Hill, Flinn, & Ells-
worth, 2011).

A subsequent study found that the choice of a
mate is also heavily regulated in contemporary
preindustrial societies which base their subsis-
tence on agriculture and animal husbandry
(Apostolou, 2010). Another study coded the
mating patterns of 16 historical agropastoral
societies over a period of approximately 5,000
years, and found that in all but one of these
societies the primary mode of long-term mating
was arranged marriage, marriage arrangements
were predominantly controlled by fathers and
other male relatives, and daughters were con-
trolled more than sons (Apostolou, 2012). In
fact, in many societies where free mate choice is
now the norm, similar mating patterns were
prevalent until only a few generations ago (e.g.,
England; see Stone, 1990).

Moreover, the asymmetry in parental in-
vestment, with women directing more paren-
tal investment to their children than men (e.g.,
pregnancy, breastfeeding), results in men
competing more intensively between them for
gaining access to women (Miller, 2013). One
way to achieve this is to fight directly with
other men (i.e., fathers, brothers, uncles, hus-
bands, possible competitors). Puts (2010) ar-
gued that observations such as men being
larger, more muscular, and more aggressive
than women suggest that male intrasexual se-
lection, where men fight each other in order to
monopolize women, had been an important
selection force in ancestral times, which acted
also in constraining women’s capacity to ex-
ercise mate choice.

In a preindustrial context there is also space
for individual mate choice to be exercised. To
begin with, in many societies parents consult
their children before choosing a spouse for
them, and individuals can exercise mate choice
more freely if their parents are absent due to
death or physically too weak to impose their
will (Apostolou, 2010, 2014). Children may
also escape from the control of their parents, or
manipulate them into granting them more free-
dom of choice (Apostolou, 2014). Last, but not
least, children can exercise choice through di-
vorce, which exists in almost all human societ-
ies (Betzig, 1989).

Overall, there is space for individual mate
choice to be exercised, but this has been re-
duced considerably in the later stage of human

259PAST, PRESENT AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

evolution. More specifically, the agropastoral
revolution resulted in much greater production
of resources, which meant that ancestral
agropastoral societies were wealthier than an-
cestral hunter-gatherer ones. In turn, this indi-
cates that there was much more at stake for
parents in choosing a mate for their children.
For instance, in an agropastoral society a mar-
riage alliance with a wealthy high status family
can provide parents access to considerable re-
sources, but this is not the case in a foraging
society where fewer resources are available.
Parents might therefore be motivated to
strengthen their grip over their children’s mat-
ing as the resources at stake increased (Apos-
tolou, 2010, 2014).

Consistent with this, comparisons between
agropastoral and hunting and gathering societ-
ies reveal that parental choice is stronger in the
former, indicating that it had also been stronger
in the later stages of human evolution that fol-
lowed the agricultural revolution, which took
place approximately 10,000 years ago (Apos-
tolou, 2010). This is of special importance, be-
cause, as these 10,000 years are the most recent,
there has not been sufficient time for evolution-
ary forces to eliminate the effects of selection
pressures operating during this period; that is,
the consequences of the evolutionary pressures
exercised during that time are still with us to-
day.

The significance of the agropastoral period
can be better understood in the context of
William Irons’ (1998) concept of the adap-
tively relevant environment (ARE). The ARE
of an evolved adaptation consists of those
features of the environment that the mecha-
nism must interact with in order to confer a
reproductive advantage. An adaptation inter-
acts only with a few selected elements out of
the organism’s total environment in order to
confer its reproductive advantage, and differ-
ent adaptations interact with different features
of the environment. When changes occur to
the environment, which are long lasting, those
adaptations having changed AREs undergo
evolution, while the rest remain the same
(Irons, 1998).

Agropastoral revolution brought about such a
permanent change; namely, the strengthening of
parental choice and the weakening of individual
mate choice, and this change is likely to have
affected the adaptations involved in mating. In

addition, although brief in evolutionary terms,
the last 10,000 years is long enough for con-
siderable evolutionary change to have oc-
curred to these adaptations (Cochran &
Harpending, 2009). The industrial revolution
also brought a permanent change to the ARE
of the mechanisms involved in mating, since
it has resulted into a considerable weakening
of parental control over mating and an asso-
ciated strengthening in individual mate choice.
Nevertheless, this transition is extremely recent in
evolutionary terms to have been able to eliminate
the effects of selection pressures operating during
the 10,000 years of preindustrial agropastoralism.
It is thus unlikely to have resulted into significant
changes in these mechanisms to make them better
adapted to the modern conditions.

The Mismatch Between Ancestral
and Modern Conditions

In parental-choice systems the choice of a
spouse rests predominantly with parents, but
children can also exercise choice through vari-
ous means, such as extramarital relationships
and divorce (see above). In free-choice systems
the choice of a spouse rests with children, but
parents can have a considerable influence on
this choice, predominantly through the use of
manipulation (Apostolou & Papageorgi, 2014).
Thus, in parental-choice and free-choice sys-
tems, both parental choice and individual choice
are exercised; the difference is that in the former
systems parental choice is stronger than indi-
vidual choice, while in the latter systems indi-
vidual choice is stronger than parental choice.
That is, individuals in both systems need to
appeal to prospective parents-in-law as desir-
able sons- and daughters-in-law, and to pro-
spective mates as husbands and wives; never-
theless, the former pressure is much stronger in
a parental-choice system than in a free-choice
system and vice versa. This difference in selec-
tion pressures may have resulted in mechanisms
that have been optimized to work well in a
parental-choice system (typical of ancestral pre-
industrial societies), and not to work very well
in a free-choice system (typical of postindustrial
societies).

In addition, because both selection forces are
present, it is expected that there is coevolution
between parents’ strategies and children’s strat-
egies. The strategies which are the products of

260 APOSTOLOU

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

coevolution taking place in a parental-choice
system may not work well in a free-choice
system and the reverse is also true. To use one
example, children value good looks more in a
mate than their parents in an in-law (Apostolou,
2014). In a parental-choice system it may be
optimal for children to overemphasize beauty,
in order to constrain their parents from making
considerable compromises on this trait: if chil-
dren have a strong preference for beauty in a
spouse, parents may be reluctant to accept a
very unattractive individual as a spouse for their
children, because this may result in a consider-
able negative reaction from them, such as run-
ning away, which can compromise the marriage
arrangement. On the contrary, in free-mate
choice systems this strong preference may not
be optimal, because the choice of a mate is not
determined by parents, so instead of constrain-
ing parents in making undesirable compromises
for their children, this strategy can lead children
to make fitness-decreasing compromises for
themselves. Individuals, for instance, may com-
promise too much on commitment, social sta-
tus, and personality traits in order to get a mate
who is good looking. Thus, they may end up
with a mate who is good looking, but has few
resources, is abusive, and not committed to the
relationship.

In sum, the anthropological and historical
records indicate that most human evolution
took place in a context where mate choice was
regulated, with parents exercising a strong
influence over their children’s mating deci-
sions, whereas many individuals today find
themselves in a context where parental influ-
ence has decreased considerably, and there is
much more freedom of choice. Finding a
long-term mate has become a task that men
and women have to undertake almost com-
pletely on their own, perhaps for the first time
in human evolutionary history. To put it an-
other way, free mate choice constitutes a
novel situation, and there may not have been
sufficient time for selection forces to optimize
the mechanisms involved in mating to the
modern context. Drawing on evolutionary
reasoning, several mechanisms involved in
mating which are likely to be affected by the
mismatch between ancestral and modern con-
ditions can be nominated.

Adaptations Involved in Mating in the
Postindustrial Context

Personality predicts many aspects of social
interaction, and this is particularly so in the
domain of intimate relationships (Buss & Haw-
ley, 2011; Figueredo, Sefcek, & Jones, 2006).
As personality traits have been shaped by evo-
lutionary forces operating in ancestral environ-
ments, it can be the case that several of these
traits may impair the formation of intimate re-
lationships in contemporary environments. For
instance, traits such as introversion and shyness,
can be disadvantageous where individuals have
to find mates on their own, but would have had
few if any negative fitness consequences in a
context where marriage was the product of ne-
gotiation between families. Similarly, a need for
intimacy, in a free-mate choice context, consti-
tutes an important prerequisite for establishing
and maintaining a long-term intimate relation-
ship. For example, narcissists have a low need
for intimacy, which makes them less motivated
and less willing to recognize and address the
shortcomings of their character in order to make
the formation of long-term intimate relation-
ships possible (Campbell & Miller, 2011). A
strong need for intimacy, however, is not a
primary requirement for establishing and main-
taining a relationship in which the purpose of
marriage is to establish useful alliances between
families.

In effect, evolutionary pressures on specific
aspects of personality such as shyness and need
for intimacy are weak where mate choice is
regulated; this translates into selection forces
allowing more variation in these traits, as alleles
that predispose for, say, a high level of shyness,
are not selected against (Fisher, 1958; Crespi &
Vanderkist, 1997). Some of this variation may
nevertheless be dysfunctional in a free-mating
context. For instance, in an ancestral setting
introverted or shy individuals would find them-
selves married to spouses that their parents have
selected, whereas in a postindustrial context,
where they have to actively seek and find their
own mates, they are likely to remain single for
a prolonged period of time.

Conversely, traits such as humor, charm, and
being easygoing make an individual a pleasant
mate to be with, and promote success in inti-
mate relationships (Buss, 2003; Kuhle, 2012);
still, when it comes to mate selection, these

261PAST, PRESENT AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

traits are of less concern to parents than they are
to their children (Apostolou, 2014; Perilloux,
Fleischman, & Buss, 2011). This means that
selection for these traits in ancestral times
would have been weak, resulting in selection
forces allowing considerable variation in these
dimensions. In effect, there would be many
individuals today scoring below the optimal
level for a context in which mating is not reg-
ulated. Although low scores in these traits may
not make the formation of long-term intimate
relationships impossible, they can make it dif-
ficult.

In summary, personality has been shaped by
selection forces in a context where mating was
regulated and individual mate choice was weak.
The consequence of this is that today, where
mating is free and there is strong individual
mate choice, many individuals find themselves
with personality dispositions that prevent or
make difficult the formation of long-lasting in-
timate relationships.

Evolutionary forces may not have made
many individuals pleasant in character, but it is
also likely that they have not made many indi-
viduals pleasant in bed. More specifically, sex-
ual intercourse constitutes an important aspect
of intimate relationships (Toates, 2014; Wincze
& Carey, 2001). Several mechanisms regulate
sexual intercourse which, however, were
shaped under ancestral conditions, and therefore
may not be able to function effectively under
modern ones. Ejaculation latency time in men
and sexual desire in woman are good candidates
of mechanisms that may not work optimally in
a free-mate choice setting.

In ancestral times, where female choice was
constrained by parental control over mating and
male-male competition, there was not a strong
need for a man to satisfy a sexual partner in
order to persuade her to stay with him. In turn,
this indicates that there had been weak evolu-
tionary pressures on the mechanisms that regu-
late ejaculation latency time. In other words,
men who ejaculated relatively quickly, allowing
little time for the sexual satisfaction of their
partners, were not particularly disadvantaged
compared to those who ejaculated later, giving
more sexual satisfaction to their partners. In
consequence, selection forces have allowed
considerable variation in ejaculation latency
time, with some of this variation not being
optimal for a free-mate choice context where

men have to sexually satisfy their partners. This
nonoptimal variation in ejaculation latency time
is characterized then as premature ejaculation,
with about one in three men suffering from it
(Laumann et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2004). As
well as making the sexual life of a couple less
satisfying, leading perhaps to the dissolution of
the relationship, early ejaculation also makes
some men feel ashamed, so that they choose not
to enter the mating market in the first place
(Barnes & Eardley, 2007).

Sexual desire motivates individuals to seek
mates (Wallen, 1995). Nevertheless, in an an-
cestral context women were exchanged between
men (Apostolou, 2014), and a strong female
sexual desire that would motivate women to
seek a mate and engage in sexual intercourse
was less necessary. This suggests that selection
pressures on the mechanisms that regulate sex-
ual desire had been weak, allowing considerable
variation in this trait; it is no surprise then that
almost one in two women today experience low
interest in sex (Shifren, Monz, Russo, Segreti,
& Johannes, 2008). Low sexual desire may im-
pair the quality and thus the length of a rela-
tionship, but it may also reduce women’s mo-
tivation to enter the mating market in the first
place.

Overall, selection pressures in ancestral hu-
man societies are likely to have allowed consid-
erable variation in the functioning of mecha-
nisms involved in sexual intercourse, with some
of this variation not being optimal for a free-
mate choice context, resulting in some individ-
uals opting out of the mating market or facing
problems in establishing and maintaining inti-
mate relationships.

Evolutionary forces may not have made
many individuals pleasant in character, and in
bed, but it is also likely that they have not made
many individuals pleasant to the eye. More spe-
cifically, the looks of a prospective in-law are
not the primary concern of parents when they
choose spouses for their children (Apostolou,
2014; Perilloux et al., 2011). Consequently, in
an ancestral context there was little evolutionary
pressure on individuals to look after their ap-
pearance, possibly resulting in high variation in
the mechanisms regulating how much attention
people place on their looks. Thus, today many
individuals may not pay adequate attention to
their appearance; for instance, they do not care
much if they become overweight, they do not

262 APOSTOLOU

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

care much about their clothing, and so …