Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sex and Age Differences in Mate-Selection Preferences

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For nearly 70 years, studies have shown large sex differences in human mate selection preferences. However, most of the studies were restricted to a limited set of mate selection criteria and to college students, and neglecting relationship status. In this study, 21,245 heterosexual participants between 18 and 65 years of age (mean age 41) who at the time were not involved in a close relationship rated the importance of 82 mate selection criteria adapted from previous studies, reported age ranges for the oldest and youngest partner that they would find acceptable, and responded to 10 yes/no questions about a potential marriage partner. For nearly all mate selection criteria, women were found to be the more demanding sex, although men placed consistently more value on the physical attractiveness of a potential partner than women. Also, the effects of the participants’ age and level of education were nearly negligible. These results demonstrate the robustness of sex differences in mate selection criteria across a substantial age range.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cox R 2 and Nagelke R 2 values were very low for the questions most of the participants agreed (men and women >90%).

References

  • Amador, J., Charles, T., Tait, J., & Helm, H. W. (2005). Sex and generational differences in desired characteristics in mate selection. Psychological Reports, 96, 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aretz, W., Demuth, I., Schmidt, K., & Vierlein, J. (2010). Partner search in the digital age. Psychological characteristics of online-dating- service-users and its contribution to the explanation of different patterns of utilization. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 1, 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2012). Evolutionary psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    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., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., & Yang, K.-S. (1990). International preferences in selection mates. A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.

    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 the Family, 63, 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origin of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Glick, P., et al. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? a test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9027-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2008). Speed-dating. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 193–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: a methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (2009). Sex differences in mate selection preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 262–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness. Implications for mating dynamics. Human Nature, 4, 205–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, M.P. (2009). The relationship between online dating and personality characteristics. Unpublished dissertation, ETD Collection for Pace University. Paper AAI3370213.

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: the effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 117–135. doi:10.1177/0265407509349633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, L. L., & Hudson, J. W. (1981). Personal characteristics important in mate preference among college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 93–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J. W., & Henze, L. F. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: a replication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 31, 772–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Initiative D21 & TNS Infratest (Eds.) (2011). (N)ONLINER Atlas 2011. Eine Topographie des digitalen Grabens durch Deutschland. [A topography of the digital trench through Germany.]. Retrieved on December 2, 2011, from http://www.initiatived21.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NOnliner2011.pdf

  • Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: the effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Kwon, K.-N., & Lee, M. (2009). Psychological characteristics of internet dating service users: the effect of self-esteem, involvement, and sociability on the use of internet dating services. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 445–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., Bailey, M. J., 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 

  • Low, B. S. (1990). Sex, power and resources: male and female strategies of resource acquisition. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 27, 49–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2011). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0025948.

  • Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N., & Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration hypothesis: when do people devalue attractive alternatives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 152–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection: a repeat study. Social Forces, 36, 368–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 758–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., Law Smith, M. J., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 193–205. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). The effects of control of resources on magnitudes of sex differences in human mate preferences. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 720–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 258–291). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2007). Interindividuelle unterschiede in beziehungspräferenzen: Das konstrukt beziehungsorientierung (BZO) und seine messung [individual differences in relationship preferences: relationship orientation and its measurement]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38, 179–193. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.38.3.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness: mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (Hrsg.). (2010). Statistisches jahrbuch 2010 [statistical yearbook 2010]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

    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: Kovač.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surra, C. A., Boettcher-Burke, T. M. J., Cottle, N. R., West, A. R., & Gray, C. R. (2007). The treatment of relationship status in research on dating and mate selection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00354.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toro-Morn, M., & Sprecher, S. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of mate preferences among university students: the United States vs. The People’s Republic of China (PRC). Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank FriendScout24 for cooperation regarding data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Wuppertal, 42119, Wuppertal, Germany

    Sascha Schwarz & Manfred Hassebrauck

Authors
  1. Sascha Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manfred Hassebrauck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sascha Schwarz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwarz, S., Hassebrauck, M. Sex and Age Differences in Mate-Selection Preferences. Hum Nat 23, 447–466 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9152-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9152-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation