Abstract
Partner preferences are an important differential in relationship formation and evolutionary fitness, and vary according to individual, ecological, and social factors. In this study, we evaluated the variation in preference for intelligence, kindness, physical attractiveness, health, and socioeconomic level among individuals of different sexes and sexual orientations in a Brazilian sample. We analyzed the preference scores of 778 heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women in three budgeted mate design tasks (low vs. medium vs. high budget) and their association with sociosexuality, attachment styles, homogamy, and willingness to engage in short- and long-term relationships. Results indicated a global trait preference order, with intelligence ranking first, followed by kindness, physical attractiveness, health, and lastly by socioeconomic status. Typical sex differences were observed mostly within the heterosexual group, and specific combinations of sex and sexual orientation were linked to variation in preference for physical attractiveness, kindness, and socioeconomic status. We also found unique associations of the other variables with partner preferences and with willingness to engage in short- or long-term relationships. By exploring the partner preferences of non-heterosexual individuals from a Latin American country, an underrepresented group in evolutionary psychology research, our results help understand the universal and specific factors that guide partner preferences and human sexual behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
Code availability
References
Afhami, R., & Rafiee, P. (2020). Adult attachment and long-term mate preferences in Iran. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6(2), 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00221-0
Alexopoulos, C., Timmermans, E., Sharabi, L. L., Roaché, D. J., Croft, A., Hall, E. D., James-Hawkins, L., Lamarche, V., & Uhlich, M. (2021). Settling down without settling: Perceived changes in partner preferences in response to COVID-19. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(6), 1901–1919. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211011527
Alves, M. V., Ekuni, R., Hermida, M. J., & Valle-Lisboa, J. (2022). The importance of bringing the Latin American perspective to cognitive sciences and education. In M. V. Alves, R. Ekuni, M. J. Hermida, & J. Valle-Lisboa (Eds.), Cognitive sciences and education in non-WEIRD populations: A Latin American perspective (pp. 3–10). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06908-6_1
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1081–1093. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1081
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616637616
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., & Yang, K. S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022190211001
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408
Buston, P. M., & Emlen, S. T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 8805–8810. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1533220100
Campbell, L., & Stanton, S. C. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences in relationship formation: What we know, what we don’t know, and why it matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12126
Candel, O. S., & Turliuc, M. N. (2019). Insecure attachment and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis of actor and partner associations. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.037
Castro, F. N., & de Araújo Lopes, F. (2011). Romantic preferences in Brazilian undergraduate students: From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.506680
Choy, B. K., Li, N. P., & Tan, K. (2023). The long and short of mistress relationships: Sex-differentiated mate preferences reflect a compromise of mating ideals. Journal of Personality, 91(2), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12734
Ciscato, E., Galichon, A., & Goussé, M. (2020). Like attract like? A structural comparison of homogamy across same-sex and different-sex households. Journal of Political Economy, 128(2), 740–781. https://doi.org/10.1086/704611
Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208
De Rosario-Martinez, H. (2013). PHIA: Post-hoc interaction analysis. R package version 0.3-1 [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/phia/
Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056438
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Mate value and mate preferences: An investigation into decisions made with and without constraints. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 835–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.004
Enterprise XM solutions. (2023). Qualtrics XM. Provo, UT. Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com/
Escorial, S., & Martín-Buro, C. (2012). The role of personality and intelligence in assortative mating. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 680–687. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38879
Féres-Carneiro, T. (1997). A escolha amorosa e interação conjugal na heterossexualidade e na homossexualidade. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 10, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79721997000200012
Fieder, M., & Huber, S. (2016). The association between religious homogamy and reproduction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1834), 20160294. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0294
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00146.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262847
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
Gerbase, A. C., Toscano, C., Titan, S., Cuchí, P., González-Salvatierra, R., & Zacarías, F. (1999). Sexually transmitted diseases in Latin America and the Caribbean. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 6, 362–370.
Gobrogge, K. L., Perkins, P. S., Baker, J. H., Balcer, K. D., Breedlove, S. M., & Klump, K. L. (2007). Homosexual mating preferences from an evolutionary perspective: Sexual selection theory revisited. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 717–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9216-x
Hames, R., Garfield, Z., & Garfield, M. (2017). Is male androphilia a context-dependent cross-cultural universal? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0855-7
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Holmes, B. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2009). Adult attachment and romantic partner preference: A review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(6–7), 833–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509345653
Howard, R. M., & Perilloux, C. (2017). Is mating psychology most closely tied to biological sex or preferred partner’s sex? Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.009
Howell, G. T., & Lacroix, G. L. (2012). Decomposing interactions using GLM in combination with the COMPARE, LMATRIX and MMATRIX subcommands in SPSS. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p001
Janicke, T., Häderer, I. K., Lajeunesse, M. J., & Anthes, N. (2016). Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Science Advances, 2(2), e1500983. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500983
Johnson, A. B. (2005). Choosing dates and mates: College student ratings of self and potential opposite-sex partners. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma. https://shareok.org/handle/11244/850
Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1166–1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1166
Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1086/300145
Kocsor, F., Rezneki, R., Juhász, S., & Bereczkei, T. (2011). Preference for facial self-resemblance and attractiveness in human mate choice. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1263–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9723-z
Kostic, B., & Scofield, J. E. (2022). Sex and sexual orientation differences in sexuality and mate choice criteria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(6), 2855–2865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02280-6
Krys, K., Vignoles, V. L., De Almeida, I., & Uchida, Y. (2022). Outside the “cultural binary”: Understanding why Latin American collectivist societies foster independent selves. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 1166–1187. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211029632
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Lago, S., Cantarero, D., Rivera, B., Pascual, M., Blázquez-Fernández, C., Casal, B., & Reyes, F. (2018). Socioeconomic status, health inequalities and non-communicable diseases: A systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 26, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-017-0850-z
Laming, G., Lyons, A., & Pepping, C. A. (2021). Long-term singlehood in sexual minority adults: The role of attachment and minority stress. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20, 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00628-0
Lehmann, V., Tuinman, M. A., Braeken, J., Vingerhoets, A. J., Sanderman, R., & Hagedoorn, M. (2015). Satisfaction with relationship status: Development of a new scale and the role in predicting well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9503-x
Lenth, R. V. (2021). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka leastsquares means. R package version 1.9.0 [Computer software]. https://cran.r-hub.io/web/packages/emmeans/emmeans.pdf
Li, N. P. (2007). Mate preference necessities in long- and short-term mating: People prioritize in themselves what their mates prioritize in them. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 528–535.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
Li, N. P., Valentine, K. A., & Patel, L. (2011). Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.005
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. F., & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 757–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033777
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, 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2
Mäenpää, E. (2015). Homogamy in educational level and parental social class in Finland: A log-linear analysis. European Sociological Review, 31(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu088
Mäenpää, E., & Jalovaara, M. (2014). Homogamy in socio-economic background and education, and the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Demographic Research, 30, 1769–1792. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.65
Mafra, A. L., Fisher, M. L., & Lopes, F. D. A. (2021). Does mate preference represent mate choice? A cross-cultural investigation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000221
Mark, K. P., Vowels, L. M., & Murray, S. H. (2018). The impact of attachment style on sexual satisfaction and sexual desire in a sexually diverse sample. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(5), 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1405310
Marzoli, D., Moretto, F., Monti, A., Tocci, O., Roberts, S. C., & Tommasi, L. (2013). Environmental influences on mate preferences as assessed by a scenario manipulation experiment. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e74282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074282
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1092–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1092
Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2), 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1086/517857
Monden, C. (2007). Partners in health? Exploring resemblance in health between partners in married and cohabiting couples. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(3), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01003.x
Muggleton, N. K., & Fincher, C. L. (2017). Unrestricted sexuality promotes distinctive short-and long-term mate preferences in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.054
Murdock, K. W., & Fagundes, C. P. (2017). Attachment orientations, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, and stress are important for understanding the link between childhood socioeconomic status and adult self-reported health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 51(2), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9842-4
Nascimento, B. S., Hanel, P. P., Monteiro, R. P., Gouveia, V. V., & Little, A. C. (2018). Sociosexuality in Brazil: Validation of the SOI-R and its correlates with personality, self-perceived mate value, and ideal partner preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.007
Natividade, J. C., & Shiramizu, V. K. M. (2015). Uma medida de apego: Versão brasileira da experiences in close relationship scale-Reduzida (ECR-R-Brasil). Psicologia USP, 26, 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-656420140086
Nojo, S., Tamura, S., & Ihara, Y. (2012). Human homogamy in facial characteristics: Does a sexual-imprinting-like mechanism play a role? Human Nature, 23, 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9146-8
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
Pepping, C. A., & MacDonald, G. (2019). Adult attachment and long-term singlehood. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.006
Pollet, T. V., & Saxton, T. K. (2019). How diverse are the samples used in the journals ‘Evolution & Human Behavior’and ‘Evolutionary Psychology’? Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00192-2
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Rahman, Q., Xu, Y., Lippa, R. A., & Vasey, P. L. (2020). Prevalence of sexual orientation across 28 nations and its association with gender equality, economic development, and individualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01590-0
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Gate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_01
Regan, P. C., Medina, R., & Joshi, A. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 29(7), 625–633. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.7.625
Ross, C. T., Hooper, P. L., Smith, J. E., Jaeggi, A. V., Smith, E. A., Gavrilets, S., ... Mulder, M. B. (2023). Reproductive inequality in humans and other mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(22), e2220124120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220124120
Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Gillath, O. (2008). Attachment style and long-term singlehood. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00211.x
Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.212
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610249
Smith, C. A., Konik, J. A., & Tuve, M. V. (2011). In search of looks, status, or something else? Partner preferences among butch and femme lesbians and heterosexual men and women. Sex Roles, 64, 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9861-8
Smits, J., Ultee, W., & Lammers, J. (1998). Educational homogamy in 65 countries: An explanation of differences in openness using country-level explanatory variables. American Sociological Review, 63, 264–285. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657327
Štěrbová, Z., Bártová, K., Nováková, L. M., Varella, M. A. C., Havlíček, J., & Valentova, J. V. (2017). Assortative mating in personality among heterosexual and male homosexual couples from Brazil and the Czech Republic. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.036
Štěrbová, Z., & Valentova, J. (2012). Influence of homogamy, complementarity, and sexual imprinting on mate choice. Anthropologie, 50(1), 47–60.
Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176008
Stiles, D. A., Gibbons, J. L., & Schnellmann, J. D. L. G. (1990). Opposite-sex ideal in the USA and Mexico as perceived by young adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022190212003
Suen, L. W., Lunn, M. R., Katuzny, K., Finn, S., Duncan, L., Sevelius, J., Flentje, A., Capriotti, M. R., Lubensky, M. E., Hunt, C., Weber, S., Bibbins-Domingo, K., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2020). What sexual and gender minority people want researchers to know about sexual orientation and gender identity questions: a qualitative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2301–2318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01810-y
Sutton, T. E. (2019). Review of attachment theory: Familial predictors, continuity and change, and intrapersonal and relational outcomes. Marriage & Family Review, 55(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2018.1458001
Szepsenwol, O., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Young, E. S., Fleck, C., & Jones, R. E. (2017). The effect of predictable early childhood environments on sociosexuality in early adulthood. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000082
Telles, E., Flores, R. D., & Urrea-Giraldo, F. (2015). Pigmentocracies: Educational inequality, skin color and census ethnoracial identification in eight Latin American countries. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 40, 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2015.02.002
Thomas, A. G., Jonason, P. K., Blackburn, J. D., Kennair, L. E. O., Lowe, R., Malouff, J., Stewart-Williams, S., Sulikowski, D., & Li, N. P. (2020). Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross‐cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12514
Thomas, A. G., & Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). Mating strategy flexibility in the laboratory: Preferences for long-and short-term mating change in response to evolutionarily relevant variables. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.004
Trivers, R. L., & Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179(4068), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4068.90
Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Meltzer, A. L., & Tsai, M. H. (2020). Mate preferences for warmth-trustworthiness predict romantic attraction in the early stages of mate selection and satisfaction in ongoing relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219855048
Valentova, J. V., Amaral, B. H., & Varella, M. A. C. (2023). Initiation of non-heterosexual relationships. In J. K. Mogilski & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and romantic relationships (pp. 212–242). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197524718.013.8
Valentova, J. V., Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., & Varella, M. A. C. (2017a). Influence of sexual orientation, population, homogamy, and imprinting-like effect on preferences and choices for female buttock size, breast size and shape, and WHR. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.005
Valentova, J. V., Fernandez, A. M., Pereira, M., & Varella, M. A. C. (2022a). Jealousy is influenced by sex of the individual, their partner, and their rival. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(6), 2867–2877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02341-4
Valentova, J. V., Medrado, A. T., & Varella, M. A. C. (2022b). Male bisexuality. In T. Shackelford (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of evolutionary perspectives on sexual psychology (pp. 52–93). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943581.005
Valentova, J. V., Varella, M. A. C., Bártová, K., Štěrbová, Z., & Dixson, B. J. W. (2017b). Mate preferences and choices for facial and body hair in heterosexual women and homosexual men: Influence of sex, population, homogamy, and imprinting-like effect. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(2), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.10.007
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2010). Invariance of adult attachment across gender, age, culture, and socioeconomic status? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509360908
Veloso, V. (2014). Comparison of partner choice between lesbians and heterosexual women. Psychology, 5(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.52021
Verbakel, E., & Kalmijn, M. (2014). Assortative mating among Dutch married and cohabiting same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12084
Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., ... Zupančič, M. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154
Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., ... Zupančič, M. (2021). Sex differences in human mate preferences vary across sex ratios. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288(1955), 20211115. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1115
Weigand, H. G. (2014). A discrete approach to the concept of derivative. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(4), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0595-x
West, T. V., Popp, D., & Kenny, D. A. (2008). A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311199
Woodward, J. A., & Bonett, D. G. (1991). Simple main effects in factorial designs. Journal of Applied Statistics, 18(2), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664769100000019
Wrulich, M., Brunner, M., Stadler, G., Schalke, D., Keller, U., Chmiel, M., & Martin, R. (2013). Childhood intelligence and adult health: The mediating roles of education and socioeconomic status. Intelligence, 41(5), 490–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.015
Zoni, A. C., Gonzalez, M. A., & Sjoegren, H. W. (2013). Syphilis in the most at-risk populations in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 17(2), e84–e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2012.07.021
Funding
JFGBT was supported by an individual undergraduate research grant by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation. Grant #2020/14735-6, Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), and JVV was supported by the production fellowship CNPq, #315952/2021-0.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Study conception, design, material preparation and data collection were performed by JVV and JFGBT. Data analyses were performed by JOS, PSPS and JFGBT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JFGBT and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This study was submitted to the Institute of Psychology of the University of Sao Paulo Ethical Board, and was approved under report number 40469220.9.0000.5561.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Takayanagi, J.F.G.B., Siqueira, J.d., Silveira, P.S.P. et al. What Do Different People Look for in a Partner? Effects of Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Mating Strategies on Partner Preferences. Arch Sex Behav 53, 981–1000 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02767-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02767-4