How Sexually Dimorphic Are Human Mate Preferences?

Abstract

Previous studies on sex-differentiated mate preferences have focused on univariate analyses. However, because mate selection is inherently multidimensional, a multivariate analysis more appropriately measures sex differences in mate preferences. We used the Mahalanobis distance (D) and logistic regression to investigate sex differences in mate preferences with data secured from participants residing in 37 cultures (n = 10,153). Sex differences are large in multivariate terms, yielding an overall D = 2.41, corresponding to overlap between the sexes of just 22.8%. Moreover, knowledge of mate preferences alone affords correct classification of sex with 92.2% accuracy. Finally, pattern-wise sex differences are negatively correlated with gender equality across cultures but are nonetheless cross-culturally robust. Discussion focuses on implications in evaluating the importance and magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences.

Human sexual selection

“…When several mate preferences from a large cross-cultural data set were recently investigated via multidimensional Mahalanobis distance (D), the sexes differed by over 2.4 standard deviations and could be classified with 92.2% accuracy [56]. Moreover, this analysis omitted a mate preference perhaps so basic-evolutionarily, the most basic-as to be often neglected: sexual orientation.…”

A sociocultural framework for understanding partner preferences of women and men: Integration of concepts and evidence

“…Somewhat in disregard of their own empirical results, these evolutionary psychologists have later emphasised the universality of sex differentiation in human mate preferences and dismissed gender parity as a possible explanation for the lessening of "sexual dimorphism" from traditional to modern societies (e.g., Buss, 2011, p. 130;Gangestad et al, 2006). In a later analysis of the same 37-culture study, the authors acknowledged some effect of gender equality, but noted that "the cross-cultural variability explained by GEM [gender empowerment measure] is dwarfed by the magnitude of the sex difference itself" (Conroy-Beam, Buss, Pham, & Shackelford, 2015, p. 1091. This conclusion was based on the GEM, however, which is no longer considered a valid measure of gender equality, as noted earlier.…”

Tie-Up Cycles in Long-Term Mating. Part I: Theory

“…As already noted, women are relatively less prone than men to short-term relationships, sexual diversity, and impulsive sexual intercourse [4], and are more oriented to self-sacrifice [18]. More generally, mate preferences are characterized by a robust sexual dimorphism which allows for the safe identification of the sex of a subject on the sole basis of the mate preferences [19]. As far as long-term mating is concerned, sex differences that show a certain stability across cultures are women's preferential valuation of social status and men's preferential valuation of physical attractiveness [20].…”