Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T10:00:40.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex Differences in Mate Preferences in Australia: Exploring Evolutionary and Social-Economic Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Evita March  and
Ann Bramwell
Evita March*
Affiliation:
Australian Catholic University, Australia
Ann Bramwell
Affiliation:
Centre for Military and Veterans Health, The University of Queensland, Australia
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Evita March, Psychology Department, Australian Catholic University, McAuley Campus, 1100 Nudgee Road, Banyo QLD 4014, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Extensive research on sex differences in mate preferences has found that men desire the physical attractiveness of a potential partner more than do women, and women desire the status and resources potential partner more than do men. The aim of the current study was to explore these sex differences in mate preferences specifically in the Australian culture, a culture that has not yet received attention in mate preferences literature. The current study predicted Australian men and women would exhibit traditional sex differences in mate preferences. The current study also aimed to explore the effect of variation in Australian women's socio-economic status (SES) and their corresponding ratings of characteristics in a potential partner. One hundred and forty-four Australian participants completed a mate selection questionnaire and results supported traditional sex differences in mate preferences. Results also found that women's SES had no effect on desirability of status and resources, but positively related to desirability of physical attractiveness in a potential partner. Results are discussed in terms of evolutionary and social-economic theories.

Keywords

Australian mate preferencesmate preferencesmate selectionsex differencesstructural powerless theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 3 , December 2012 , pp. 18 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Household income and income distribution (ABS Reference No. 6523.0). Retrieved from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/32F9145C3C78ABD3CA257617001939E1/$File/65230_2007-08.pdfGoogle Scholar
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12 (1), 1–49. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D.M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Willasenor, A., . . . Yang, K. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21 (1), 5–47. doi:10.1177/0022022190211001Google Scholar
Buss, D.M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (3), 559–570. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559Google Scholar
de Sousa Campos, L., Otta, E., & de Oliveria Siqueira, J. (2002). Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analyses and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23 (5), 395–406. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138%2802%2900099-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54 (6), 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwick, P.W., Eagly, A.H., Glick, P., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., Fiske, S.T., Blum, A.M., . . . Volpato, C (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-types mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54 (9–10), 603–614. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9027-xGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G.J., Tither, J.M., O'Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (6), 659–672. doi:10.1177/0146167203262847CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, R., & Tinker, M. (2002). Value priorities and preferences for a relationship partner. Personality and Individual Differences, 32 (8), 1339–1349. doi:10.1016/S0191–8869%2801%2900122-2Google Scholar
Graefe, D.R., & Lichter, D.T. (2007). When unwed mothers marry: The marital and cohabiting partners of mid-life women. Journal of Family, 28 (5), 595–622. doi:10.1177/0192513X06295200Google Scholar
Herz, R.S., & Inzlicht, M. (2002). Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in human mate selection: The importance of smell for women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23 (5), 359–364. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138%2802%2900095-8Google Scholar
Hill, S.R., & Reeve, H.K. (2004). Mating games: The evolution of human mating transactions. Behavioral Ecology, 15 (5), 748–756. doi:10.1093/beheco/arh073Google Scholar
Jepsen, L.K., & Jepsen, C.A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39 (3), 435–453. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0027Google Scholar
Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., & Eagly, A.H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26 (4), 322–328. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00071Google Scholar
Khallad, K. (2005). Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status and culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22 (2), 155–168. doi:10.1177/0265407505050940Google Scholar
Li, N.P., Bailey, J.M., Kenrick, D.T., & Linsenmeier, J.A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6), 947–955. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947Google Scholar
Lippa, R.A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36 (2), 193–208. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2Google Scholar
Marlowe, F.W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15 (4), 365–376. doi:10.1007/s12110-004-1014-8Google Scholar
Moore, F.R., & Cassidy, C. (2007). Female status predicts female mate preferences across nonindustrial societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 41 (1), 66–74. doi:10.1177/1069397106294860Google Scholar
Moore, F.R., Cassidy, C., Smith, M.J., & Perrett, D.I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27 (3), 193–205. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.08.003Google Scholar
Shackelford, T.K., Schmitt, D.P., & Buss, D.M. (2005). Mate preferences of married persons in newlywed year and three years later. Cognition and Emotion, 19 (8), 1262–1270. doi:10.1080/02699930500215249Google Scholar
Strassberg, D.S., & Holty, S. (2003). An experimental study of women's internet personal ads. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (3), 253–260. doi:10.1023/A:1023465601718Google Scholar
Trivers, R.L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 1871–1971). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Urbaniak, G.C., & Kilmann, P.R. (2006). Niceness and dating success: A further test of the nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles, 55 (3–4), 209–224. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, W., & Eagly, A.H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (5), 699–727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed