Table 4. Males.

Categorical self-perception score	Categorical mate-preference score
	Wealth and status	Family commitment	Physical appearance	Sexual fidelity
Wealth and status	109.3	24.8	37.2	15.9
	***	***	***	***
	0.19	0.05	0.07	0.03
Family commitment	8.9	342.9	7.8	10.2
	*	***	*	*
	0.02	0.42	0.02	0.02
Physical appearance	24.7	20.5	55.2	25.0
	***	***	***	***
	0.05	0.04	0.11	0.05
Sexual fidelity	0.0	46.8	0.3	70.5
	ns	***	ns	***
	0.00	0.09	0.00	0.13

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 = 470. 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 15 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.