Abstract
Previous research has documented several reliable differences between men and women in terms of mate preferences regarding age, physical appearance, financial prospects, and more. However, most of the research has been on heterosexual populations. The current study attempted to further explore those differences in non-heterosexual populations. The project was part replication regarding heterosexual populations and part exploratory regarding non-heterosexual populations. The sample contained 3298 participants, including 1863 males (1675 gynephiles, 56 androphiles, 132 bisexuals) and 1435 females (1037 androphiles, 33 gynephiles, 365 bisexuals). Participants responded to questions about mate preferences in terms of good financial prospects, good looks, chastity, ambition/industriousness, youth/age, uncommitted sex, visual sexual stimuli, status, physical attractiveness, jealousy, and interest in short- versus long-term mating. Results replicated typical sex differences between heterosexual men and women in all measures we analyzed. We also found several instances when bisexual respondents were more different from heterosexual respondents than homosexual respondents (specifically regarding interest in uncommitted sex, the importance of chastity, and interest in short-term mating). Despite limitations in data collection, the results demonstrate that homosexual and bisexual individuals do not always form a heterogenous group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
OSF; https://osf.io/8tnd4/.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Archer, J. (2019). The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences. Biological Reviews, 94, 1381–1415. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12507
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. 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, 45–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616637616
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preference: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Basic Books.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551914
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x
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
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M. G., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018413
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
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128
Lawson, J. F., James, C., Jannson, A. U. C., Koyama, N. F., & Hill, R. A. (2014). A comparison of heterosexual and homosexual mating preferences in personal advertisements. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 408–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.05.006
Lippa, R. A. (2007). The relation between sex drive and sexual attraction to men and women: A cross-national study of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9146-z
Lippa, R. A. (2020). Interest, personality, and sexual traits that distinguish heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual individuals: Are there two dimensions that underlie variations in sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01643-9
Lishner, D. A., Nguyen, S., Stocks, E. L., & Zillmer, E. J. (2008). Are sexual and emotional infidelity equally upsetting to men and women? Making sense of forced-choice responses. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 667–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600412
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioral Ecology, 15, 1044–1045. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh107
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Skowronski, J. J., & Zengel, B. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.02.006
Schmitt, D. P. (2007). Sexual strategies across sexual orientations: How personality traits and culture relate to sociosexuality among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18, 183–214. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v18n02_06
Scofield, J., & Kostic, B. (2016, April 8–10). Sex differences in heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual participants [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association. Dallas, TX.
Semenyna, S. W., Belu, C. F., Vasey, P. L., & Honey, P. L. (2018). Not straight and not straightforward: The relationships between sexual orientation, sociosexuality, and dark triad traits in women. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0111-y
van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8
VanderLaan, D. P., Ren, Z., & Vasey, P. L. (2013). Male androphilia in the ancestral environment. Human Nature, 24, 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-013-9182-z
Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2014). Evolving research on the evolution of male androphilia. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.23.3-CO1
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Elizabeth M. Delong and Megan Kimzey for assisting in data coding, and Tim Daugherty for assisting in constructing the questionnaire and for comments on the manuscript.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This study was approved by Missouri State University’s IRB and all research was in compliance with APA ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kostic, B., Scofield, J.E. Sex and Sexual Orientation Differences in Sexuality and Mate Choice Criteria. Arch Sex Behav 51, 2855–2865 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02280-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02280-6