Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures

Abstract

Contemporary mate preferences can provide important clues to human reproductive history. Little is known about which characteristics people value in potential mates. Five predictions were made about sex differences in human mate preferences based on evolutionary conceptions of parental investment, sexual selection, human reproductive capacity, and sexual asymmetries regarding certainty of paternity versus maternity. The predictions centered on how each sex valued earning capacity, ambitionindustriousness, youth, physical attractiveness, and chastity. Predictions were tested in data from 37 samples drawn from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands (total N = 10,047). For 27 countries, demographic data on actual age at marriage provided a validity check on questionnaire data. Females were found to value cues to resource acquisition in potential mates more highly than males. Characteristics signaling reproductive capacity were valued more by males than by females. These sex differences may reflect different evolutionary selection pressures on human males and females; they provide powerful cross-cultural evidence of current sex differences in reproductive strategies. Discussion focuses on proximate mechanisms underlying mate preferences, consequences for human intrasexual competition, and the limitations of this study.

Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers

“…In complex societies, several studies have found that women place greater value on a potential long-term male's education than men do (Buss 1989;Sprecher el al. 1994).…”

“…Hadza men probably preferred fatter women because it is important to store energy for pregnancy and lactation and no foraging woman, certainly no Hadza woman, is ever too fat, a fact that may also explain the Hadza preference for a high waist-to-hip ratio (Marlowe and Wetsman 2001). Unlike women in complex societies (Buss 1989;Sprecher et al 1994). Hadza women did not value looks significantly less than men did, though if youth and fertility are considered aspects of appearance.…”

“…This may seem unsurprising to those who assume this explains why women in complex societies place so much value on male occupation and wealth (Buss 1989(Buss , 1999. However, the benefit of having a rich husband in agricultural and industrial societies, where resources can go direclly to the household, is straightforward.…”

Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust.

“…Whereas sex for males generally does not preclude immediate future reproductive success, sex for females potentially does, given women's nine-month gestation period and subsequent lactation commitment. Also, sexual activities place women at greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases (Varghese, Maher, Peterman, Branson, & Steketee, 2001) and reputational damage than men (Buss, 1989;Dickemann, 1981). Because women paid such higher costs for poor sexual choices across evolutionary history, they should thus be much more avoidant of (and hence more disgusted by) a variety of sexual behaviors.…”

Frequency-Dependent Social Transmission and the Interethnic Transfer of Female Genital Modification in the African Diaspora and Indigenous Populations of Colombia

“…These models aim to disentangle the forces hypothesized to be responsible for the origins of the FGMo trait (virginity assurance [Buss 1989] and/or costly signaling [Grafen 1990;Zahavi 1975]) from those that cause its persistence in contemporary populations (frequency dependence [McElreath et al 2008]). Ross et al (2015) contend that the practice of FGMo can be understood as arising from the constraints of marriage markets in much the same way as bridewealth and marriage payments (Anderson 2003;Bell and Song 1994;Borgerhoff Mulder 1995;Chiappori et al 2002).…”