International Preferences in Selecting Mates

Abstract

This study sought to identify the effects of culture and sex on mate preferences using samples drawn world-wide. Thirty-seven samples were obtained from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands (N = 9,474). Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed strong effects of both culture and sex, moderated by specific mate characteristics. Chastity proved to be the mate characteristic on which cultures varied the most. The preference ordering of each sample was contrasted with an international complement. Each culture displayed a unique preference ordering, but there were some similarities among all cultures as reflected in a positive manifold of the cross-country correlation matrix. Multidimensional scaling of the cultures yielded a five dimensional solution, the first two of which were interpreted. The first dimension was interpreted as Traditional versus Modern, with China, India, Iran, and Nigeria anchoring one end and the Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland, and Sweden anchoring the other. The second dimension involved valuation of education, intelligence, and refinement. Consistent sex differences in value attached to eaming potential and physical attractiveness supported evolution-based hypotheses about the importance of resources and reproductive value in mates. Discussion emphasizes the importance of psychological mate preferences for scientific disciplines ranging from evolutionary biology to sociology.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bateson, P. (1983). Mate choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berscheid, E. , & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 157-215). New York: Academic Press.

Buss, D. M. (in press). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.

Buss, D. M. , & Barnes, M. F. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.

Digman, J. , & Inoye, I. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.

Gough, H. G. (1973). Personality assessment in the study of population. In J. T. Fawcett (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on population (pp. 329-353). New York: Basic Books.

Halliday, T. R. (1978). Sexual selection and mate choice. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 180-213). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

10.

Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554-558.

11.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

12.

Hudson, J. W. , & Henze, L. F. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 772-775.

13.

McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

14.

McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection. Social Forces, 36, 368-373.

15.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.

16.

Osgood, C. E. , Suci, G. J. , & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

17.

Plomin, R. , DeFries, J. C. , & McClearn, G. E. (1980). Behavioral genetics: A primer. San Francisco: Freeman.

18.

Short, R. V. (1981). Sexual selection in man and the great apes. In C. E. Graham (Ed.), Reproductive biology of the great apes (pp. 319-341). New York: Academic Press.

19.

Triandis, H. , Bontempo, R. , & Villareal, M. J. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

20.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971. Chicago: Aldine.

21.

Willerman, L. (1979). The psychology of individual and group differences. San Francisco: Freeman.

22.

Williams, G. C. (1975). Sex and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

23.

Williams, J. E. , Giles, J. , Edwards, J. R. , Best, D. L. , and Daws, J. T. (1977). Sex-trait stereotypes in England, Ireland, and the United States. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 16, 303-309.