Mate preferences have a long research history in the social sciences, yet given their evolving nature they must be revisited periodically. We use evolutionary psychology and social role paradigms to frame our study and contribute to this body of work in two important ways. First, we examine preference trends over the past 25 years and find that both men and women increasingly place a higher value on a mate’s financial prospects and desire for home and children. Second, we compare results generated from qualitative mate preference data with two popular methods in mate preference literature in terms of substantive findings and methodological utility.
BaileyB. L. (1988). From the front porch to the back seat: Courtship in twentieth-century America. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
2.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
3.
BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K.KirkpatrickL. A.LarsenR. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491-503.
4.
CampbellL.WilburC. J. (2009). Are the traits we prefer in potential mates the traits they value in themselves? An analysis of sex differences in the self-concept. Self and Identity, 8, 418-446.
5.
ChapaisB. (2008). Primeval kinship: How pair bonding gave birth to human society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
CherlinA. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Random House.
7.
ChristensenH. T. (1947). Student views on mate selection. Marriage and Family Living, 9, 85-88.
8.
CunninghamM. (2008). Changing attitudes toward the male breadwinner, female homemaker family model: Influences of women’s employment and education over the lifecourse. Social Forces, 87, 299-323.
9.
DeutschF. M.KokotA. P.BinderK. S. (2007). College women’s plans for different types of egalitarian marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 916-929.
10.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245-264.
11.
FeingoldA. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.
12.
FiskeA. P.FiskeS. T. (2007). Social relationships in our species and cultures. In KitayamaS.CohenD. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 283-307). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
13.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and function. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102-105.
14.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.
15.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
16.
HillR. (1945). Campus values and mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554-558.
17.
HoytL.HudsonJ. W. (1981). Personal characteristics important in mate preferences among college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 93-96.
18.
HudsonJ. W.HenzeL. F. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 772-775.
19.
LeichtK. T.FitzgeraldS. T. (2006). Postindustrial peasants: The illusion of middle-class prosperity. New York, NY: Worth.
20.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
21.
LiN. P.KenrickD. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468-489.
22.
OppenheimerV. K.KalmijnM.LimN. (1997). Men’s career development and marriage timing during a period of rising inequality. Demography, 34, 311-330.
23.
PaikA.WoodleyV. (2009). Symbols as signals: Courtship behavior as signaling processes in adolescence (Unpublished manuscript). University of Iowa, Iowa City.
24.
PowersE. A. (1971). Thirty years of research on ideal mate characteristics: What do we know?International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 1, 207-215.
25.
SayerL. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social Forces, 84, 285-303.
26.
ShackelfordK.SchmittD. P.BussD. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447-458.
27.
SmockP. J. (2004). The wax and wane of marriage: Prospects for marriage in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 966-973.
28.
SoonsJ. P.LiefbroerA. C.KalmijnM. (2009). The long-term consequences of relationship formation for subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1254-1270.
29.
SouthS. (1991). Sociodemographic differentials in mate selection preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 928-940.
30.
SprecherS.SullivanQ.HatfieldE. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074-1080.
31.
SweeneyM. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132-147.
WangW.ParkerV. (2011). Women see value and benefits of college; Men lag on both fronts, survey finds (Pew Social & Demographic Trends). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
36.
WhelanC. B. (2006). Why smart men marry smart women. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
