68 | Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol.

1 • September 2012

The psychological secrets to finding Mr. and Mrs. Right:

Abstract
Research on human mate selection has found consistent evidence that men and women differ in their preferences
when selecting a potential partner. Sex differences between the particular characteristics of physical attractiveness,
age, and earning potential have shown to be remarkably robust across diverse samples. Interpretations from both
the sociocultural and evolutionary perspectives have demonstrated how mate choice is an interactive relationship
between sex, mate selection context, and the nature of the trade-offs involved. However, little evidence has been
found in support of this association between a participant’s ideal partner preference for a particular characteristic,
and the characteristic that was associated with his or her romantic interest in a real-life potential partner.

The development of a romantic-sexual relationship mantic interest with real-life potential partners.
in which a strong connection forms between two in- Decades of research on ideal partner prefer-
dividuals, and one in which they view themselves as ences or mate preferences have established that men
a couple, is one of the most significant interpersonal and women differ in their reports on the importance
relationships a person can have. Such relationships of certain characteristics in a romantic partner. Such
function to fulfill needs essential to both men and investigations have consistently revealed two signifi-
women, such as emotional needs for intimacy and af- cant sex differences: a greater desire among males for
fection, or social support in the form of companion- romantic partners who are physically attractive, and
ship or status. The important role that gender plays a greater desire among females for romantic part-
in the structure and functioning of relationships has ners who have good earning potential. Buss (1989)
been a fundamental topic of interest in research con- conducted one of the first cross-cultural studies ex-
cerning romantic-sexual relationships. Because mate amining human mate preferences on a broad scale.
choice is a crucial decision for most adults, there has Across 37 different cultures, consistent gender differ-
been extensive research on the qualities people value ences were found, demonstrating the general trend
in a potential long-term partner. Studies in this area that men place greater value on physical attractive-
of human mate selection have been particularly con- ness and relative youth, whereas females placed great-
cerned with sex differences and similarities in mate er importance on the financial capacity of potential
attraction. This paper seeks to examine various differ- male partners. A study conducted by Buss, Shack-
ences between men and women in terms of research elford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen (2001) examining the
on mate preference, assess the findings in support of cultural evolution of such values in the United States
the evolutionary or sociocultural perspective on hu- over a period of half a century found that these main
man social behaviour, and evaluate whether these sex differences appeared to be stable across genera-
partner preferences can reliably predict actual ro- tions, as well as across various cultures.
 Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012 | 69

These findings have been shown to be remark- realistic approach, Li et al. (2002) examined the char-
ably robust across diverse samples and a number of acteristics that people considered to be essential in
empirical tests. Investigations utilizing questionnaire mate selection when choices are highly constrained,
studies have generally found that men have rated phys- using a budget allocation design. Results indicated
ical attractiveness and youth as more important than that status and resources were considered to be ne-
women have, whereas earning potential was found cessities for women when selecting a partner, but
to be a more important factor for women than men considered luxuries for men. In contrast, physical at-
(Wiederman & Allgeier, 1992; Sprecher, Sullivan, & tractiveness was considered a necessity by men, but a
Hatfield, 1994). Other measures that have asked par- luxury by women. The results also indicated that the
ticipants to evaluate photographs or descriptions of traits of kindness and intelligence were judged to be
opposite-sex individuals have found that the physical necessities by both sexes.
attributes of these stimuli affected men’s preferences Another study also investigated mate choic-
more than women’s, and the earning prospects de- es between pairs of hypothetical potential partners
picted in descriptions of target individuals influenced where men and women were forced to make trade-
women’s preferences more than men’s (Townsend & offs among three main sets of criteria in mate selec-
Wasserman, 1998). tion: warmth/trustworthiness, attractiveness/vitality,
In addition, content analysis of personal ads and status/resources (Fletcher, Tither, O’Loughlin,
has also found similar results, showing that men were Friesen, & Overall, 2004). Findings again confirmed
more likely to offer financial resources as a desirable an expected sex difference where women placed high-
characteristic, and to seek physical attractiveness, ap- er emphasis on warmth/trustworthiness and status/
pealing body shape, and a photograph from a poten- resources when selecting a long-term partner, where-
tial partner (Wiederman, 1993). In contrast, a higher as men placed greater importance on the attractive-
percentage of women offered physical attractiveness, ness/vitality of women. This recognition of trade-offs
and requested professional status or financial secu- proves to be tremendously valuable and useful in the
rity from a potential suitor. Furthermore, there was consideration of mate preferences, demonstrating
also a general trend where men expressed a desire for that the criteria men and women consider most im-
younger women, a tendency that became more prom- portant depends on the degree to which choices are
inent among older advertisers, whereas women were constrained.
more likely to indicate men older than themselves The understanding of these consistent sex dif-
as a preference—a tendency that diminished slightly ferences in human mating preferences has been de-
with the age of the advertiser. scribed using two central theoretical orientations,
The majority of the research on mate selec- one based on social structural factors, and the other
tion criteria has utilized a typical mate preference on principles of evolutionary biology. The evolution-
study in which men and women were simply asked ary explanation argues that the human mating sys-
to rate the importance they place on a series of traits tem has evolved to highlight traits associated with the
in a prospective partner. Current researchers have ar- production and survival of offspring (Buss & Barnes,
gued that past research does not take into account the 1986). It suggests that these evolved strategies differ
constraints imposed on peoples’ mating preferences, between men and women because a man’s reproduc-
and thus may not reflect real-life mate choices where tive value may be related more to his ability to provide
people often make trade-offs between strengths and economic resources to support his offspring, whereas
weaknesses when selecting their partners (Li, Bailey, a woman’s reproductive value may have greater as-
Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). To simulate a more sociation with health and fertility (Buss, 1989). In
70 | Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012

modern society, this predicts that men should ex- emphasis on a woman’s domestic skills.
press a preference for women who possess traits that Many of the predictions made by both evolu-
signal their reproductive capacity, such as youth and tionary and sociocultural psychologists regarding hu-
physical attractiveness. In contrast, women should man mate preferences have been supported in stud-
seek partners whose qualities indicate a potential for ies of heterosexual romantic relationships. Despite
providing valuable material resources, such as higher the differences in the two perspectives, both theories
education, ambition and status. Evidence has been are not inherently incompatible, and many research-
found in support of the evolutionary perspective in ers have acknowledged the importance of using both
that radical cultural and social changes in the past models when evaluating human mate preferences
century have not completely removed gender differ- (Shoemake, 2007). Whereas the evolutionary theory
ences regarding the importance placed on age, at- is significant for its biological approach to mate se-
tractiveness, and resources. As Buss et al. (2001) dis- lection strategies, the social structural model is cru-
covered in their cross-generational study, despite the cial for its recognition of the differential impacts that
profound cultural changes that have occurred over society and cultural values can have on mate choice.
the generations within America, there was consider- Neither theory alone appears to be fully capable of
able continuity among those main sex differences. addressing the complexity of mate preferences, but
Gender differences have also been explained together the two perspectives offer an intricate and
from a sociocultural perspective, which emphasizes diverse picture of mate selection theory.
the distinction between the traditional social roles While prior studies have built a strong case for
that men and women occupy. In most societies, the existence of sex differences in mate preferences
women have been classified as homemakers, whose with respect to physical attractiveness, youth, and
primary responsibility is to look after the home and earning prospects, it would be equally valuable to ex-
children, whereas men are viewed as the providers amine the functional importance of these preferences
who control the family’s economic and social status when the targets of participants’ romantic interest
(Eagly & Wood, 1999). Women have also had gener- were not merely hypothetical ideals or photographs
ally poorer opportunities in terms of access to status, but rather real-life potential partners. Eastwick (2009)
power and resources, and thus seek men with these conducted several studies to examine how the traits
characteristics who will be resourceful providers and that people ideally desire in a romantic partner in-
to gain upward mobility in society. In contrast, men fluence the process of romantic partner selection and
are more likely to prefer youthful and attractive wives retention. In his studies, Eastwick (2009) employed
who will devote themselves to domestic behaviours. various methods, including speed-dating events or
Due to greater access to resources, men are in a better self-reports on potential romantic partners that par-
position to place demands on the quality of the ex- ticipants’ knew personally, combined with ideal pref-
change object itself, such as attractiveness. There has erences questionnaires and follow-up questionnaires.
also been evidence of changing preferences among Results revealed that across three different samples,
men and women as educational opportunities and participants exhibited traditional gender differences
work experiences of both sexes become more similar. in ideal partner preferences consistent with previous
The study conducted by Buss et al. (2001) described research findings, where men placed greater impor-
earlier found that over time, both men and women tance on physical attractiveness in an ideal partner
placed greater importance on physical attractiveness than women, and women placed more importance on
in a mate. Men also expressed greater emphasis on earning prospects than men. However, interestingly,
having a wife with good financial prospects and lesser these sex differences did not emerge with partici-
 Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012 | 71

pants’ romantic interests in real-life potential roman- new findings. In addition, perhaps there are alterna-
tic partners, such that men and women did not differ tive forms of ideal partner preferences that are not
in the extent to which these characteristics inspired merely presented at the level of discrete traits that
romantic desire. In general, participants’ stated ideal may potentially influence romantic outcomes. While
preferences for particular traits did not predict how much of the prior research has examined mate pref-
strongly that trait was associated with their romantic erences for specific traits in a romantic partner, it has
interest in potential real-life partners. In addition, a been suggested that people may desire broader cat-
laboratory study was conducted involving a live in- egories or “types” of people to some extent in a po-
teraction with an opposite sex confederate that either tential partner, for example an athlete, an engineer,
conformed or did not conform to participants’ ideal an activist, or a hipster (Eastwick, 2009). As a result,
preferences (Eastwick, 2009). Results revealed that research should investigate whether other variations
participants were more likely to express romantic in- of mate preference measures, such as ideal partner
terest in an ideal rather than a non-ideal potential ro- preference categories rather than specific traits, might
mantic partner when evaluating that partner’s written better approximate whom individuals desire as a ro-
profile; however, following a real-life interaction with mantic partner and whether those relationships are
the partner, ideals were no longer correlated with ro- likely to be more or less successful. Previous research
mantic interest. on mate preferences had already been criticized for
These studies conducted by Eastwick (2009) the fact that existing methodology generally focuses
have demonstrated that these mate preferences may on self-reports, which place various limitations on
play a smaller functional role than previously be- the kinds of results that may be obtained, such as the
lieved in determining whom participants desired and generalization of sex differences in romantic behav-
pursued for a romantic relationship. His findings have iour (Fletcher et al., 2004). Research that requires
suggested that the live interaction itself may interfere participants to answer questions concerning the traits
with the effective application of participants’ ideals, of their ideal potential partner may be incompatible
in part because it allows participants to reinterpret with the process that they actually use to select and
the meaning of a potential romantic partner’s traits. retain romantic partners. Researchers should seek to
Eastwick (2009) proposed that the trait for which develop various ways to investigate this process. For
participants had reported their ideals and that trait as example, if participants shift the meaning of a poten-
applied to the live confederate essentially represented tial partner’s traits in real-life interaction, perhaps
two different things. In addition, the qualities exhib- providing a larger context of the trait when question-
ited by real people often depend on the individual’s ing ideal partner preferences, this may be a more reli-
overall constellation of traits. As a result, ideal prefer- able measure between mate preferences and partner
ences may not significantly influence romantic part- selection.
ner selection in real life because the process of com- In conclusion, research on mate selection has
paring a trait in a potential partner with a theoretical, found consistent evidence that men and women dif-
de-contextualized ideal is not straightforward. fer in their preferences when selecting a potential
An examination of the research to date re- partner. Sex differences between the particular char-
garding mate preferences has lead to some interesting acteristics of physical attractiveness, age, and earning
directions for future research. If people tend not to potential have shown to be remarkably robust across
consult their ideal mate preferences when selecting a diverse samples. Interpretations from both the socio-
romantic partner, then discovering what information cultural and evolutionary perspectives have demon-
ultimately does affect their decision can bring about strated how mate choice is an interactive relationship
72 | Inkblot: The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology • Vol. 1 • September 2012

between sex, mate selection context, and the nature homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences
of the trade-offs involved. These stated ideal partner in trading off traits in mate selection. Person-
preferences were presumed to influence how or why ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659-
people might be interested in some romantic partners 672.
instead of others, but further research have discovered Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier,
that this might not necessarily be the case. In fact, lit- J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries
tle evidence was found in support of this association of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs.
between a participant’s ideal partner preference for a Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
particular characteristic, and the characteristic that ogy, 82, 947-955.
was associated with his or her romantic interest in Shoemake, E. G. (2007). Human mate selection
a real-life potential partner. The development of ro- theory: An integrated evolutionary and social
mantic relationships is without a doubt an elaborate approach. Journal of Scientific Psychology,
and dynamic interaction that can be significantly in- 11, 35-41.
fluenced by various factors including sex, gender, and Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., and Hatfield, E. (1994).
cultural context. Mate selection preferences: gender
differences examined in a national sample.
References Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66, 1074-1080.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual
preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment
in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior,
12, 1-49. 19, 171-191.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differ-
human mate selection. Journal of Personality ences in mate preferences: Evidence from
and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570. personal advertisements. Ethology and
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Sociobiology, 13, 331–352.
& Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Sex dif-
American mate preferences: The cultural ferences in mate selection criteria: Sociobio
evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and logical or socioeconomic explanation?. Ethol-
Family, 63, 491-503. ogy & Sociobiology, 13, 115-124.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex
differences in human behavior: Evolved dis
positions versus social roles. American Psy-
chologist, 54, 408-423.
Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Sex differences in mate pref-
erences revisited: The role of ideals in
romantic partner selection and retention.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
B: The Sciences and Engineering, 70(5-B),
3220.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C.,
Friesen, M & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and