An influential explanation for gender differences in mating strategies is that the sex-specific reproductive constraints faced by human ancestors shaped these differences. Other theorists have emphasized the role of societal factors, hypothesizing, for example, that gender differences in mate preferences should wane in gender-equal societies. However, findings have been ambiguous. Using recent data and a novel measure of gender equality, we revisited the role of gender parity in gender differentiation for mate preferences. In the first study, 3,177 participants from 10 nations with a gradually decreasing Global Gender Gap Index (GGI) provided online ratings of the desirability of mate attributes with reportedly evolutionary origins. In the second study, GGI scores were related to gender differences in mate preferences previously reported for 8,953 participants from 31 nations (Buss, 1989). Both studies show that gender differences in mate preferences with presumed evolutionary roots decline proportionally to increases in nations’ gender parity.
ArcherJ. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible?American Psychologist, 51, 909–917.
2.
BarretoH.HowlandF. M. (2005). Introductory econometrics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BirnbaumM. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832.
4.
BraverS. L.MacKinnonD. P.PageM. C. (2003). Levine’s guide to SPSS for analysis of variance (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BrownG. R.DickinsT. E.SearR.LalandK. N. (2011). Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 313–324.
6.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural & Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
7.
BussD. M. (2011). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). London, England: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
BussD. M.AbbottM.AngleitnerA.BiaggioA.Blanco-VillasenorA.Bruchon-SchweitzerM.. . . YangK.-S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.
9.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary theory on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
EaglyA. H.EastwickP. W.Johannesen-SchmidtM. (2009). Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 403–414.
12.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behaviour: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
13.
EastwickP. W.EaglyA. H.GlickP.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.FiskeS. T.BlumA. M. B.. . . VolpatoC. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614.
14.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.EaglyA. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1012–1032.
15.
FeingoldA. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences—A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.
16.
GangestadS. W.HaseltonM. G.BussD. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95.
17.
GoslingS. D.VazireS.SrivastavaS.JohnO. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.
18.
GrimesD. A.SchulzK. F. (2002). Bias and causal association in observational research. Lancet, 359, 248–252.
19.
HausmannR.TysonL. D.ZahidiS. (2010). The global gender gap report 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
20.
HaynesS. N.O’BrienW. H. (2000). Principles and practice of behavioral assessment. New York, NY: Springer.
21.
HoffmanM.GneezyU.ListJ. A. (2011). Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 14786–14788.
22.
HydeJ. S.MertzJ. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 8801–8807.
23.
JüttingJ. P.MorrissonC.Dayton-JohnsonJ.DrechslerD. (2008). Measuring gender (in)equality: The OECD gender, institutions, and development data base. Journal of Human Development, 9, 65–89.
24.
KasserT.SharmaY. S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females’ preference for resource-acquisition characteristics of males. Psychological Science, 10, 374–377.
25.
KlasenS. (2006). UNDP’s gender-related measures: Some conceptual problems and possible solutions. Journal of Human Development, 7, 243–274.
26.
LiN. P.KenrickD. T.BaileyM. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
27.
MooreF. R.CassidyC. (2007). Female status predicts female mate preferences across nonindustrial societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 66–74.
28.
MooreF. R.CassidyC.Law SmithM. J.PerrettD. I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex differentiated mate preferences. Evolution & Human Behavior, 27, 193– 205.
29.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L.SriramN.LindnerN. M.DevosT.AyalaA.. . . GreenwaldA. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 10593–10597.
30.
SkitkaL. J.SargisE. G. (2006). The internet as psychological laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 529–555.
31.
SweeneyM.CancianM. (2004). The changing importance of White women’s economic prospects for assortative mating. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1015–1028.
32.
TriversR. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In CampbellB. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
33.
WaynforthD.DunbarR. I. M. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: Evidence from ‘Lonely Hearts’ advertisements. Behaviour, 132, 755–779.
34.
WilsonE. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behaviour of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.
36.
ZentnerM. (2005). Ideal mate personality concepts and compatibility in close relationships: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 242–256.
37.
ZentnerM.EerolaT. (2010). Rhythmic engagement with music in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 5568–5573.
38.
ZentnerM.RenaudO. (2007). Origins of adolescents’ ideal self: An intergenerational perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 557–574.
39.
ZentnerM.ShinerR. (2012). Fifty years of progress in temperament research: A synthesis of major themes, findings, challenges, and a look forward. In ZentnerM.ShinerR. (Eds.), The handbook of temperament (pp. 673–700). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40.
ZietschB.VerweijK.HeathA. C.MartinN. (2011). Variation in human mate choice: Simultaneously investigating heritability, parental influence, sexual imprinting and assortative mating. American Naturalist, 177, 605–616.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
