Skip to main content

Who Cares About Marrying a Rich Man? Intelligence and Variation in Women’s Mate Preferences

Abstract

Although robust sex differences are abundant in men and women’s mating psychology, there is a considerable degree of overlap between the two as well. In an effort to understand where and when this overlap exists, the current study provides an exploration of within-sex variation in women’s mate preferences. We hypothesized that women’s intelligence, given an environment where women can use that intelligence to attain educational and career opportunities, would be: (1) positively related to their willingness to engage in short-term sexual relationships, (2) negatively related to their desire for qualities in a partner that indicated wealth and status, and (3) negatively related to their endorsement of traditional gender roles in romantic relationships. These predictions were supported. Results suggest that intelligence may be one important individual difference influencing women’s mate preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Because there is a fixed budget, allocation to one trait is dependent on what has already been allocated to all the others. However, since the results replicate those of the Hill scale, it is unlikely that they are the result of statistical peculiarities of the scale.

References

  1. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11(6), 474–480.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Buss, D. M. (1996). Sexual conflict: Evolutionary insights into feminism and the “battle of the sexes. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 296–318). New York: Oxford University Press.

  5. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. B. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gross, M. R. (1996). Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: Diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 92–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 382–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y. S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females’ preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10(4), 374–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. I. (1990). Kaufman brief intelligence test manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproduction strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moore, F. R., & Cassidy, C. (2007). Female status predicts female mate preferences across nonindustrial societies. Cross-cultural Research, 41(1), 66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., Smith, M. J. L., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Naugle, R. I., Chelune, G. J., & Tucker, G. D. (1993). Validity of the Kaufman brief intelligence test. Psychological Assessment, 5, 182–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Simpson, J. A., & Lapaglia, J. (2006). An evolutionary account of strategic pluralism in human mating changes in mate preferences across the menstrual cycle. In J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The evolution of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 161–177). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Townsend, J. M. (1993). Sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences among college students. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Townsend, J. M., & Roberts, L. W. (1993). Gender differences in mate preference among law students: Divergence and convergence of criteria. Journal of Psychology, 127(5), 507–528.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. Vigil, J. M., Geary, D. C., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2006). Trade-offs in low-income women’s mate preferences: Within-sex differences in reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 17(3), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Weiderman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bobbi Low and four anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine E. Stanik.

Appendix

Appendix

Adherence to Gender Roles in Courtship and Marriage

  1. 1.

    I believe that men should always pay on dates.

  2. 2.

    I hope for a very traditional proposal including a large diamond ring.

  3. 3.

    I believe it is appropriate for women to take their husband’s last name after marriage.

  4. 4.

    I believe that women’s primary job is to work inside the home and raise children.

  5. 5.

    I expect that when I am married my husband and I will have a traditional division labor where he is the breadwinner and I am the homemaker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stanik, C.E., Ellsworth, P.C. Who Cares About Marrying a Rich Man? Intelligence and Variation in Women’s Mate Preferences. Hum Nat 21, 203–217 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9089-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Female mate preferences
  • Intelligence
  • Within-sex variation
  • Sociosexuality
  • Gender roles