Sex Roles

, Volume 54, Issue 9–10, pp 603–614 | Cite as

Is Traditional Gender Ideology Associated with Sex-Typed Mate Preferences? A Test in Nine Nations

  • Paul W. EastwickEmail author
  • Alice H. Eagly
  • Peter Glick
  • Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt
  • Susan T. Fiske
  • Ashley M. B. Blum
  • Thomas Eckes
  • Patricia Freiburger
  • Li-li Huang
  • Maria Lameiras Fernández
  • Anna Maria Manganelli
  • Jolynn C. X. Pek
  • Yolanda Rodríguez Castro
  • Nuray Sakalli-Ugurlu
  • Iris Six-Materna
  • Chiara Volpato
Original Article


Social role theory (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000) predicts that traditional gender ideology is associated with preferences for qualities in a mate that reflect a conventional homemaker-provider division of labor. This study assessed traditional gender ideology using Glick and Fiske's (1996, 1999) indexes of ambivalent attitudes toward women and men and related these attitudes to the sex-typed mate preferences of men for younger mates with homemaker skills and of women for older mates with breadwinning potential. Results from a nine-nation sample revealed that, to the extent that participants had a traditional gender ideology, they exhibited greater sex-typing of mate preferences. These relations were generally stable across the nine nations.


Mate preferences Ambivalent sexism Cross-cultural Mate selection Gender 



The research was supported in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship awarded to Paul Eastwick


  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Darlington, R. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences social behavior: A social-role analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the partner preferences of women and men. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 269–295). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.Google Scholar
  16. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate-selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.Google Scholar
  19. Himmelfarb, S. (1993). The measurement of attitudes. In A. H. Eagly & S. Chaiken, The psychology of attitudes (pp. 23–87). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  20. Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 422–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y. S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females' preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133.Google Scholar
  25. Kenrick, D. T., Trost, M. R., & Sundie, J. M. (2004). Sex roles as adaptations: An evolutionary perspective on gender differences and similarities. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 65–91). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  26. Koyama, N. F., McGain, A., & Hill, R. A. (2004). Self-reported mate preferences and “feminist” attitudes regarding marital relations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morgan, B. L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales: Introduction of a liberal feminist attitude and ideology scale. Sex Roles, 34, 359–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers, J. L., & Well, A. (1995). Research design and statistical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. 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, 247–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simpson, J. A., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 363–372.Google Scholar
  32. Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  35. Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. United Nations Development Programme (2001). Human development report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul W. Eastwick
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alice H. Eagly
    • 1
  • Peter Glick
    • 2
  • Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt
    • 3
  • Susan T. Fiske
    • 4
  • Ashley M. B. Blum
    • 5
  • Thomas Eckes
    • 6
  • Patricia Freiburger
    • 5
  • Li-li Huang
    • 7
  • Maria Lameiras Fernández
    • 8
  • Anna Maria Manganelli
    • 9
  • Jolynn C. X. Pek
    • 10
  • Yolanda Rodríguez Castro
    • 11
  • Nuray Sakalli-Ugurlu
    • 12
  • Iris Six-Materna
    • 13
  • Chiara Volpato
    • 14
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLawrence UniversityAppletonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Behavioral and Social SciencesOakton Community CollegeDes PlainesUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  5. 5.Lawrence UniversityAppletonUSA
  6. 6.TestDaF Institute, University of HagenHagenGermany
  7. 7.Center for General EducationNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan
  8. 8.Department of Psychosocial and Educational Analysis and InterventionUniversidad de VigoVigo (Pontevedra)Spain
  9. 9.Department of General PsychologyUniversità di PadovaPadovaItaly
  10. 10.Department of PsychologyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  11. 11.Department of Psychosocial and Educational Analysis and InterventionUniversidad de VigoVigo (Pontevedra)Spain
  12. 12.Department of PsychologyMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  13. 13.Department of PsychologyChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany
  14. 14.Department of PsychologyUniversità di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations