Prior research and theory suggest that people use three main sets of criteria in mate selection: warmth/trustworthiness, attractiveness/vitality, and status/resources. In two studies, men and women made mating choices between pairs of hypothetical potential partners and were forced to make trade-offs among these three criteria (e.g., warm and homely vs. cold and attractive). As predicted, women (relative to men) placed greater importance on warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources in a potential mate but less importance on attractiveness/vitality. In addition, as expected (a) ratings of ideal standards partly mediated the link between sex and mate choices, (b) ideal standards declined in importance from long-term to short-term relationships, with the exception of attractiveness/vitality, and unexpectedly, (c) sex differences were higher for long-term (compared to short-term) mate choice. Explanations and implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374.
2.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242-273.
3.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
4.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19-31.
5.
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Western, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.
7.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
8.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of American mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Austin at Texas.
9.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271-278.
10.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447-462.
11.
Cunningham, M. R., Druen, P. B., & Barbee, A. P. (1997). Angels, mentors and friends. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 109-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Fitness, J., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Overall, N. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and intimate relationships. In M. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 258-278). London: Sage Ltd.
13.
Fletcher, G. J. O. (2002). The new science of intimate relationships. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
14.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933-940.
15.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.
16.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644.
17.
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationship: Effects of gender, self-appraisal and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.
18.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
19.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D., Koyabashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., et al. (1999). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically. Nature, 399, 741-742.
20.
Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and sex. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53-73.
21.
Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. New York: HarperCollins.
22.
Simpson, J. A. (2003, February). Lust in our ancestral dust? Associations between female reproductive cycle and mate preferences. Paper presented at the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Los Angeles.
23.
Simpson, J. A., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Campbell, L. (2001). The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86-106). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
24.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463-481.
25.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
26.
Wiederman, M. W., & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153-170.
27.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 2-7.
28.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.
