Table 3. Females.

Categorical self-perception score	Categorical mate-preference score
	Wealth and status	Family commitment	Physical appearance	Sexual fidelity
Wealth and status	146.9	17.8	26.3	4.3
	***	***	***	ns
	0.23	0.03	0.05	0.01
Family commitment	10.3	623.7	2.4	14.4
	*	***	ns	**
	0.02	0.55	0.01	0.03
Physical appearance	32.0	22.4	118.2	17.3
	***	***	***	***
	0.06	0.04	0.19	0.03
Sexual fidelity	8.0	45.2	2.6	157.4
	*	***	ns	***
	0.02	0.08	0.01	0.24

Summary of the outcome of linear regressions between categorical self-perception and mate-preference scores for all combinations of four evolutionarily relevant categories. In each cell the first line gives the F statistic, the second gives the P value (***, P < 0.0001; **, P < 0.001; *, P < 0.01; ns, P > 0.01), and the third gives the coefficient of determination (R², the amount of variation explained), and all df = 506. The potentials-attract hypothesis predicts strong positive relationships between self-perception and mate-preference scores in cells with italicized type, whereas the likes-attract hypothesis predicts strong positive relationships in cells with bold type (see Table 1). Although 13 of the 16 regressions were statistically significant, those predicted by the likes-attract hypothesis explained more of the observed variation in mate preference than did those predicted by the potentials-attract hypothesis.