Most studies demonstrating the contribution of economic constraints on women to sex differences in mate preferences have used samples from postindustrial societies with similar social structures. The authors investigate the effects of female status on female mate preferences in a subsection of the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Whyte's (1978) codes provide indicators of female status, and mate preferences are obtained through qualitative analysis of ethnographic data in the Human Relations Area Files. Two measures of female status are found to relate to the relative importance of physical appearance to access to resources in attraction to a partner: Domestic authority is associated with greater importance placed on appearance relative to resources, whereas ritualized female solidarity is associated with lower importance of appearance relative to resources. Results are discussed in the context of the contribution of social and economic constraints on women to sex differences.
Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349-368.
2.
Borgia, G. (1989). Typology and mating preferences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 16-17.
3.
Buss, D. M. (1989a). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
4.
Buss, D. M. (1989b). Toward an evolutionary psychology of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 39-49.
5.
Buss, D. M. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: a study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47.
6.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
7.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
8.
Crawford, C. (1989). Sex differences in life histories: The role of sexual selection and mate choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 18-18.
9.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
10.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction—A comparison across 5 research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.
11.
Feingold, A. (1991). Sex-differences in the effects of similarity and physical attractiveness on opposite-sex attraction. Basic Applications of Social Psychology, 12, 357-367.
12.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences—A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139.
13.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, A. S. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587.
14.
Gil-Burmann, C., Peláez, F., & Sánchez, S. (2002). Mate choice differences according to sex and age: An analysis of personal advertisements in Spanish newspapers. Human Nature, 13, 493-508.
15.
Hayden, B., Deal, M., Cannon, A., & Casey, J. (1986). Ecological determinants of women's status among hunter/gatherers. Human Evolution, 1, 449-473.
16.
Hendrix, L. (1994). What is sexual inequality? On the definition and range of variation. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, 287-307.
17.
Hrdy, S. B. (1997). Raising Darwin's consciousness: Female sexuality and the prehominid origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 8, 1-49.
18.
Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: the effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322-328.
19.
Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y. S. (1999). Reproductive Freedom, educational equality, and females' preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374-377.
20.
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.
21.
Koyama, N. F., McGain, A., & Hill, R. A. (2004). Self-reported mate preferences and “feminist” attitudes regarding marital relations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 327-335.
22.
Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2002). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
Li, N. P., Kenrick, D. T., & Bailey, M. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
24.
Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., Law Smith, M. J., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 193-205.
25.
Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8, 329-369.
26.
Otta, E., da Silva Queiroz, R., de Sousa Campos, L., & Silveira, M. T. (1999). Age differences between spouses in a Brazilian marriage sample. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 99-103.
27.
Ross, M. (1986). Female political participation: A cross-cultural explanation. American Anthropologist, 88, 842-858.
28.
Sanday, P. R. (1981). Female power and male dominance: On the origins of sexual inequality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241-253.
30.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
31.
Waynforth, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: Evidence from ‘Lonely Hearts’ advertisements. Behaviour, 132, 755-779.
32.
West, F. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Whyte, M. K. (1978). Cross-cultural codes dealing with the relative status of women. Ethology, 17, 211-237.
34.
Whyte, M. K. (1979). The status of women in pre-industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socio-economic explanation?Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115-124.
