Are Sex Differences in Mating Preferences Really “Overrated”? The Effects of Sex and Relationship Orientation on Long-Term and Short-Term Mate Preferences
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.”
KeywordsSex differences Mate preferences Sociosexual orientation Long-term relationship orientation Short-term relationship orientation Online dating
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict(s) of interest.
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.
- 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
- 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
- Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239–260.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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//0022-3518.104.22.1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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