Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selection criteria in the search for a sperm donor: behavioural traits versus physical appearance

  • Published:
Journal of Bioeconomics Aims and scope

Abstract

Despite extensive literature on female mate choice, empirical evidence on women’s mating preferences in the search for a sperm donor is scarce, even though this search, by isolating a male’s genetic impact on offspring from other factors like paternal investment, offers a naturally ”controlled” research setting. In this paper, we work to fill this void by examining the rapidly growing online sperm donor market, which is raising new challenges by offering women novel ways to seek out donor sperm. We not only identify individual factors that influence women’s mating preferences but find strong support for the proposition that behavioural traits (inner values) are more important in these choices than physical appearance (exterior values). We also report evidence that physical factors matter more than resources or other external cues of material success, perhaps because the relevance of good character in donor selection is part of a female psychological adaptation throughout evolutionary history. The lack of evidence on a preference for material resources, on the other hand, may indicate the ability of peer socialization and better access to resources to rapidly shape the female decision process. Overall, the paper makes useful contributions to both the literature on human behaviour and that on decision-making in extreme and highly important situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, through contacts on the Internet rather than such formal channels as assisted reproduction clinics (Bossema et al. 2014).

  2. VoyForum.com, TadpoleTown.com, BubHub.com, FertilityFriends.co.uk—Infertility and Fertility Support, PSD (privatespermdonor.com).

  3. Co-Parent.net, Co-ParentMatch.com, PrideAngel.com, and Modamily.com.

  4. Twenty-one others provided barely any information and so were excluded from our analysis.

  5. Educational level was measured by the following question: My highest level of education achieved at this point in time (1 = below grade 10, 2 = grade 10, 3 = grade 11, 4 = grade 12, 5 = technical college (prevocational, trade college, apprenticeship), 6 = undergraduate university study (diploma, bachelor’s), 7 = post-graduate university study (graduate diploma, graduate certificate, master’s), 8 = doctorate/PhD. A similar item assessed income: My household’s annual wage would be in the range of 1 = below $20,000, 2 = $20,000 – $50,000, 3 = $50,000 -$80,000, 4 = $80,000 – $110,000, 5 = $110,000 – $150,000, 6 = $150,000 – $180,000, 7 = $180,000 – $210,000, 8 = $210,000 – $240,000, 9 = $240,000 – $270,000, 10 = $270,000 – $300,000, 11= above $300,000.

    Height was scaled as follows: 9 = over 220 cm (taller than 7 ft 1 in), 8 = 210–220 cm (6 ft 11 in–7 ft 1 in), 7 = 200–210 cm (6 ft 7 in–6 ft 11 in), 6 = 190–200 cm (6 ft 3 in–6 ft 7 in), 5 = 180–190 cm (5 ft 11 in–6 ft 3 in), 4 = 170–180 cm (5 ft 7 in–5 ft 11 in), 3 = 160–170 cm (5 ft 3 in–5 ft 7 in), 2 = 150–160 cm (4 ft 11 in–5 ft 3 in), 1 = under 150 cm (shorter than 4 ft 11 in). Weight was similarly ranked: 1 = under 50 kg (110 lb), 2 = 50–60 kg (110–132 lb), 3 = 60–70 kg (132–154 lb), 4 = 70–80 kg (154–176 lb), 5 = 80–90 kg (176–198 lb), 6 = 90–100 kg (198–220 lb), 7 = 100–110 kg (220–242 lb), 8 = 110–120 kg (242–264 lb), 9 = 120–130 kg (264–286 lb), 10 = 130–140 kg (286–308 lb), 11 = over 140 kg (308 lb).

  6. All things considered, how would you describe your health (1 = very unhealthy, 7 = very healthy).

    Table 1 Summary statistics: women seeking donors
    Full size table

  7. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life (1 = very unsatisfied, 7 = very satisfied).

References

  • Acker, J. M. (2013). The case for an unregulated private sperm donation market. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 20, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvard, M. S., & Gillespie, A. (2004). Good Lamalera whale hunters accrue reproductive benefits. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 225–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, M., & Iwasa, Y. (1996). Sexual selection. TREE, 11, 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (2000). The elusive embryo: How women and men approach new reproductive technologies. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G., Butler, A., & Nachtigall, R. D. (2005). Resemblance talk: A challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1300–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossema, E. R., Janssens, P. M., Treucker, R. G., Landwehr, F., van Duinen, K., Nap, A. W., et al. (2014). An inventory of reasons for sperm donation in formal versus informal settings. Human Fertility, 17, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewaeys, A. De, Bruyn, J. K., Louwe, L. A., & Helmerhorst, F. M. (2005). Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices. Human Reproduction, 20, 820–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burr, J. (2009). Fear, fascination and the sperm donor as ‘abjection’ in interviews with heterosexual recipients of donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31, 705–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Science, 12, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H. (1947). Student views on mate selection. Marriage and Family Living, 9, 85–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, S., Small, J., & Pomiankowski, A. (2006). Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology, 16, R755–R765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K. (2007). Donor gametes: Anonymous or identified? Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 21, 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K., Gillett, W., & Grace, V. (2009). Parental information sharing with donor insemination conceived offspring: A follow-up study. Human Reproduction, 24, 1099–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1872). The origin of species. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dokoupil, T. (2011). ‘Free sperm donors’ and the women who want them. Newsweek, Oct., 2, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elinder, M., & Erixson, O. (2012). Gender, social norms, and survival in maritime disasters. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America), 109, 13220–13224.

  • Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness. Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1958). The genetical theory of natural selection. New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flinn, M. V. (1986). Correlates of reproductive success in a Caribbean village. Human Ecology, 14, 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., Savage, D. A., & Torgler, B. (2010). Interaction of natural survival instincts and internalized social norms exploring the Titanic and Lusitania disasters. PNAS ( Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America), 107, 4862–4865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(2), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (2000). “It’s a wonderful life”: Signaling generosity among the Ache of Paraguay. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, K. (2006). Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28, 261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102(3), 458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. R. (2011). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, M. (2004). Genetic connection and relationships in narratives of donor-assisted conception. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 2, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, M., & Ryan, M. J. (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klock, S. C., Jacob, M. C., & Maier, D. (1996). A comparison of single and married recipients of donor insemination. Human Reproduction, 11, 2554–2557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J. (1991). A feminist and evolutionary biologist looks at women. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 34, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How human nature shapes our choices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiblum, S. R., Palmer, M. G., & Spector, I. P. (1995). Non-traditional mothers: Single heterosexual/lesbian women and lesbian couples electing motherhood via donor insemination. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 16, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. N., 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 

  • Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 97–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, M. B. (1990). Kipsigis women’s preferences for wealthy men: Evidence for female choice in mammals? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 27, 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordqvist, P. (2012). Origins and originators: Lesbian couples negotiating parental identities and sperm donor conception. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 14, 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawłowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (1999). Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266(1416), 281–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, E. A. (1971). Thirty years of research on ideal mate characteristics: What do we know? International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 1, 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, D. W., & Russell, L. (2010). Characteristics of men willing to act as sperm donors in the context of identity-release legislation. Human Reproduction, 26, 266–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodino, I. S., Burton, P. J., & Sanders, K. A. (2011). Mating by proxy: A novel perspective to donor conception. Fertility and Sterility, 96, 998–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapo, H. S. (2006). Assisted reproduction and the law: Disharmony on a divisive social issue. Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 465–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J. E. (1994). Sperm donor selection and the psychology of female mate choice. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J. E. (1997). Female choice in the context of donor insemination. In P. A. Gowaty (Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology: Boundaries, intersections and frontiers (pp. 489–504). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J. E., Kristiansen, A., & Wara, A. (1997). A Norwegian note on sperm donor selection and the psychology of female mate choice. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1980). Précis of the evolution of human sexuality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 171–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorn, P., Katzorke, T., & Daniels, K. (2008). Semen donors in Germany: A study exploring motivations and attitudes. Human Reproduction, 23, 2415–2420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (2002). Natural selection and social theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waynforth, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: evidence from’Lonely Hearts’ advertisements. Behaviour, 755–779.

  • Welling, L. L. M., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., & Jones, B. C. (2009). Extraversion predicts individual differences in women’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 996–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge financial support from the Australian Research Council (FT110100463).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD,  4001, Australia

    Stephen Whyte & Benno Torgler

  2. EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, ISBS, EBS Business School, Rheingaustraße 1, 65375, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany

    Benno Torgler

  3. CREMA—Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Zuerich, Switzerland

    Benno Torgler

Authors
  1. Stephen Whyte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benno Torgler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Whyte.

Additional information

We are thankful to the editor and two reviewers for their valuable comments and to David A. Savage for providing valuable feedback when developing the survey.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Correlations table: recipient’s preferences for donor characteristics
Full size table

Our Big Five questionnaire, taken from Saucier’s (1994) work on the ‘mini-marker’, is a 36-item condensed version of Goldberg’s (1992) robust set of 100 markers for Big Five factor analysis. In our version, adjectives with a negative connotation were reversed (designated by the symbol R), so that the numerical value for all answers reflected the same low to high scale. To ascertain each participant’s numerical score for each factor, responses were aggregated on each factor and then averaged based on the number of questions on each. The extraversion factor contained one more question (8 in total) than the other four (each with 7).

The five factors were aggregated from the following scale items: Factor 1: Extraversion

  • Talkative

  • Withdrawn (R)

  • Bashful

  • Quiet (R)

  • Extroverted

  • Shy (R)

  • Enthusiastic

  • Lively

Factor 2: Agreeableness

  • Sympathetic

  • Harsh (R)

  • Kind

  • Cooperative

  • Cold (R)

  • Warm

  • Selfish (R)

Factor 3: Conscientiousness

  • Orderly

  • Systematic

  • Inefficient (R)

  • Sloppy (R)

  • Disorganised (R)

  • Efficient

  • Careless (R)

Factor 4: Emotional Stability (Neuroticism)

  • Envious (R)

  • Moody (R)

  • Touchy (R)

  • Jealous (R)

  • Temperamental (R)

  • Fretful (R)

  • Calm

Factor 5: Openness (Intellect and/or Imagination)

  • Deep

  • Philosophical

  • Creative

  • Intellectual

  • Complex

  • Imaginative

  • Traditional

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whyte, S., Torgler, B. Selection criteria in the search for a sperm donor: behavioural traits versus physical appearance. J Bioecon 17, 151–171 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-014-9193-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-014-9193-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation