Advertisement

Are Sex Differences in Mating Preferences Really “Overrated”? The Effects of Sex and Relationship Orientation on Long-Term and Short-Term Mate Preferences

  • Sascha SchwarzEmail author
  • Lisa Klümper
  • Manfred Hassebrauck
Research Article

Abstract

Sex differences in mating-relevant attitudes and behaviors are well established in the literature and seem to be robust throughout decades and cultures. However, recent research claimed that sex differences are “overrated”, and individual differences in mating strategies (beyond sex) are more important than sex differences. In our current research, we explore between-sex as well as within-sex differences; further we distinguish between short-term and long-term relationship orientation and their interactions with sex for predicting mate preferences. In Study 1, we analyzed a large dataset (n = 21,245) on long-term mate characteristics. In Study 2 (n = 283), participants indicated their preference for long-term as well as short-term partners. The results demonstrate the necessity to include both intersexual as well as intrasexual differences in mating strategies. Our results question the claim that sex differences in mate preferences are “overrated.”

Keywords

Sex differences Mate preferences Sociosexual orientation Long-term relationship orientation Short-term relationship orientation Online dating 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict(s) of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement of Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants. The participants were encouraged to contact the authors for any questions.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R. S., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy, and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 45–64.  https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnocky, S., Woodruff, N., & Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Men's sociosexuality is sensitive to changes in mate availability. Personal Relationships, 23, 172–181.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asendorpf, J. B., & Penke, L. (2005). A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 275–276.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05220058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport, 11, 3829–3834.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200011270-00046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bech-Sørensen, J., & Pollet, T. V. (2016). Sex differences in mate preferences: a replication study, 20 years later. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 171–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0048-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bendixen, M., Asao, K., Wyckoff, J. P., Buss, D. M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2017). Sexual regret in US and Norway: effects of culture and individual differences in religiosity and mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 246–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bendixen, M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2017). Advances in the understanding of same-sex and opposite-sex sexual harassment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 583–591.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 292–297.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239–260.Google Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carter, S. C. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspective on social perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4530(98)00055-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1321–1327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, 623–665.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Farrelly, D. (2011). Cooperation as a signal of genetic or phenotypic quality in female mate choice? Evidence from preferences across the menstrual cycle. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 406–430.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X532896.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human Nature, 9, 23–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-998-1010-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 413–419.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a1019888024255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(93)90009-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17(2), 75–95.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women's sexual strategies: the hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00151-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hallam, L., de Backer, C. J. S., Fisher, M. L., & Walrave, M. (2018). Are sex differences in mating strategies overrated? Sociosexual orientation as a dominant predictor in online dating strategies. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4, 456–465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0150-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Methodology in the social sciences [2nd ed.]. New York: Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.Google Scholar
  34. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 393–427.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., Bradshaw, S., & Field, J. (1992). Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk. Nature, 360, 410–412.  https://doi.org/10.1038/360410a0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 606–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jonason, P. K., Teicher, E. A., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). The TIPI’s validity confirmed: associations with sociosexuality and self-esteem. Individual Differences Research, 9, 52–60.Google Scholar
  40. Kennair, L. E. O., & Bendixen, M. (2012). Sociosexuality as predictor of sexual harassment and coercion in female and male high school students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 479–490.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kennair, L. E. O., Bendixen, M., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Sexual regret: tests of competing explanations of sex differences. Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916682903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.6.951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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, 947–955.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, 468–489.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. March, E., Van Doorn, G., & Grieve, R. (2018). Netflix and chill? What sex differences can tell us about mate preferences in (hypothetical) booty-call relationships. Evolutionary Psychology, 16, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918812138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitchell, K. R., Mercer, C. H., Prah, P., Clifton, S., Tanton, C., Wellings, K., & Copas, A. (2019). Why do men report more opposite-sex sexual partners than women? Analysis of the gender discrepancy in a British national probability survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 56, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1481193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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, 1113–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rammsayer, T. H., Borter, N., & Troche, S. J. (2017). The effects of sex and gender-role characteristics on facets of sociosexuality in heterosexual young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 254–263.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1236903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v10n01_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Gate, R. (2000). Partner preferences. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwarz, S. (2008). Das 2D:4D-Fingerlängenverhältnis und die Vermeidung von Nähe als mögliche Determinanten der Beziehungsorientierung [Possible determinants of relationship orientation: 2D:4D finger length ratio and avoidant attachment]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bergische Universität,WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwarz, S., & Baßfeld, L. (2018). Do men help only beautiful women in social networks? Current Psychology, 38, 965–976.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0086-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2007). Interindividuelle Unterschiede in Beziehungspräferenzen. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38, 179–193.  https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.38.3.179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447–466.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9152-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwarz, S., Mustafić, M., Hassebrauck, M., & Jörg, J. (2011). Short- and long-term relationship orientation and 2D:4D finger-length ratio. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 565–574.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9698-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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). Mahwah: LEA.Google Scholar
  64. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1395–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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, 843–853.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Storz, C. (2001). Soziale Kognitionsprozesse bei der Partnerwahl: Der Einfluß von Prototypen auf die Wahrnehmung und Beurteilung potentieller Partner [Social cognition in mate choice: the impact of prototypes on the perception and evaluation of potential partners]. Hamburg: KovačGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomas, A. G., Jonason, P. K., Blackburn, J., Kennair, L. E. O., Lowe, R., Malouff, J., et al. (2019). Mate preference priorities in the East and West: a cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Journal of Personality, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12514.
  69. Trivers, R. L. (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
  70. Waynforth, D. (2001). Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically attractive men. Human Nature, 12, 207–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-001-1007-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917–922.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: examining the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 375–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499709551905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wiederman, M., & Dubios, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00006-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bergische Universität WuppertalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations