Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 193–208 | Cite as

The Preferred Traits of Mates in a Cross-National Study of Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women: An Examination of Biological and Cultural Influences

Original Paper

Abstract

BBC Internet survey participants (119,733 men and 98,462 women) chose from a list of 23 traits those they considered first, second, and third most important in a relationship partner. Across all participants, the traits ranked most important were: intelligence, humor, honesty, kindness, overall good looks, face attractiveness, values, communication skills, and dependability. On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). Sexual orientation differences were smaller than sex differences in trait rankings, but some were meaningful; for example, heterosexual more than homosexual participants assigned importance to religion, fondness for children, and parenting abilities. Multidimensional scaling analyses showed that trait preference profiles clustered by participant sex, not by sexual orientation, and by sex more than by nationality. Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness. United Nations indices of gender equality correlated, across nations, with men's and women's rankings of character traits but not with their rankings of physical attractiveness. These results suggest that cultural factors had a relatively greater impact on men's and women's rankings of character traits, whereas biological factors had a relatively greater impact on men's and women's rankings of physical attractiveness.

Keywords

Cross-cultural research Mating psychology Physical attractiveness Sex differences Sexual orientation Evolutionary theory Social structural theory 

Notes

Acknowedgements

I am grateful to BBC TV Science for commissioning this research, and to the BBC Science and Nature website for programming and hosting the study.

References

  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, 1081–1093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanca-Villasenor, A., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. The Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.Google Scholar
  13. Hoyt, L. L., & Hudson, J. W. (1981). Personal characteristics important in mate preferences among college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hudson, J. W., & Henze, L. F. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Social Forces, 31, 772–775.Google Scholar
  15. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–91.Google Scholar
  16. 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, 1166–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lippa, R. A. (2005a). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Lippa, R. A. (2005b). Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Review of Sex Research, 16, 119–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection: A repeat study. Social Forces, 36, 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peplau, L. A. (2001). Rethinking women's sexual orientation: An interdisciplinary, relationship-focused approach. Personal Relationships, 8, 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Powers, E. A. (1971). Thirty years of research on ideal mate characteristics: What do we know? International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 1, 207–215.Google Scholar
  23. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  26. Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Sex differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology & Sociobiology, 13, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, G., & Rahman, Q. (2005). Born gay: The psychobiology of sex orientation. London: Peter Owen Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations