In this investigation, data on young, single adults' preferences in marital partners were gathered from three very diverse cultures: the United States, Russia, and Japan. Based on evolutionary, social learning, historical, and cross-cultural perspectives, the authors hypothesized that in all three cultures they would find certain traditional gender differences. Men would care more than women about physical attractiveness, whereas women would care more than men about status (e.g., intelligence; ambition; money, status, and position; potential for success) and personality attributes (e.g., kindness, understanding, expressiveness, openness). Women would be more "choosy" overall than would men. The authors also hypothesized thatpeople from the United States (a Western individualist culture) would expect more from their relationships than would those from Japan (an Eastern collectivist culture). Finally, the authors predicted that gender differences would be smallest in the United States and largest in Japan. They found strong support for all but the last of these hypotheses and found weak support for that one.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berry, J. W. , Poortinga, Y H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Berscheid, E. (1993). Foreword. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology ofgender (pp. vii-xvii). New York: Guilford.
3.
Bleier, R. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories of women. New York: Pergamon.
4.
Braudel, F. (1984). The perspective of the world (S. Reynolds, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. Amenrcan Scientist, 73,47-51.
6.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
7.
Buss, D. M. , & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
8.
Buss, D. M. , & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 50,559-570.
9.
Buss, D. M. , et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47.
10.
Chu, G. C. (1985). The changing concept of self in contemporary China. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F.L.K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 252-277). London: Tavistock.
11.
Collier, J. F. , & Rosaldo, M. Z. (1981). Politics and gender in simple societies. In S. B. Ortner & H. Whitehead (Eds.), Sexual meanings: The cultural construction of gender and sexuality (pp. 275-329). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
13.
Doi, L. T. (1973). The anatomyofdependence (J. Bester, Trans.). Tokyo: KodanshaInternational.
14.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.
15.
Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: Implications of mating dynamics. Human Nature, 4, 205-236.
16.
Goodwin, R. , & Tang, D. (1990). Preferences for friends and close relationship partners: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 579-581.
17.
Hatfield, E. , & Rapson, R. L. (1993a). Historical and cross-cultural perspectives on passionate love. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4, 67-98.
18.
Hatfield, E. , & Rapson, R. L. (1993b). Love, sex, and intimacy: Theirpsychology, biology, and history. New York: HarperCollins.
19.
Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37,554-558.
20.
Ho, D.Y.F. , (1982). Asian concepts in behavioral science. Psychologia, 25, 228-235.
21.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335-355). Lisse, Holland: Swets & Zeitlinger.
22.
Howard, J. A. , Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 194-200.
23.
Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Hsu, F.L.K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F.L.K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self. Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 24-55). London: Tavistock.
25.
Kagitçibaşi, C. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989 (pp. 135-200). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
26.
Kenrick, D. T. , & Trost, M. R. (1989). Areproductive exchange model of heterosexual relations: Putting proximate economics in ultimate perspective. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 92-118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Markus, H. , & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
28.
McNeill, W. (1963). The rise of the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Quinn, N. (1977). Anthropological studies on women's status. Annual Review of Anthropology, 6, 181-225.
30.
Rapson, R. L. (1988). American yearnings: Love, money, and endless possibility. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
31.
Reiss, I. L. , & Lee, G. R. (1988). Family systems in America (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
32.
Schwartz, S. H. (1993, June). Toward explanations of national differences in value priorities. Invited address delivered at the 24th Congress of the Interamerican Society of Psychology, Santiago, Chile.
33.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Tmandis, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theoretical and methodological issues (Vol. 18, pp. 85-122). London: Sage.
34.
Shlapentokh, V. (1984). Love, marriage, andfriendship in the Soviet Union: Idealsandpractices. New York: Praeger.
35.
South, S. J. (1991). Sociodemographic differentials in mate selection preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 928-940.
36.
Sprecher, S. , & Chandak, R. (1992). Attitudes about arranged marriages and dating among men and women from India. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 20, 59-69.
37.
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.
38.
Stavrianos, L. S. (1981). Global rift: The Third World comes of age. New York: Morrow.
39.
Stem, M. (1979). Sex in the USSR (M. Howson & C. Ryan, Trans.). New York: Times Books.
40.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: New Directions.
41.
Tavris, C. , & Offir, C. (1984). The longest war: Sex differences in perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
42.
Travis, C. B. , & Yeager, C. P. (1991). Sexual selection, parental investment, and sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 117-129.
43.
Triandis, H. C. , McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.
44.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
45.
Wallen, K. (1989). Mate selection: Economics and affection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 37-38.
46.
Wiederman, M. W. , & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanations?Etiology and Sociobiology, 13, 115-124.
47.
Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (p. xx-xx). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
