In two experiments, female and male participants envisioned themselves as a married person with children who is either a homemaker or a provider. Participants who envisioned themselves as a future homemaker regarded a potential mate's provider qualities as more important and homemaker qualities as less important, compared with participants who envisioned themselves as a future provider. Envisioning oneself as a homemaker also shifted preferences toward an older spouse, compared with envisioning oneself as a provider. In the control conditions of the experiments, in which participants freely envisioned their own future marriage, the less provider responsibility anticipated for the wife, the more traditional were mate preferences. These experiments support the social role theory view that the roles anticipated by men and women influence their choice of mates.
Amodio, D.M., & Showers, C.J. (2005). "Similarity breeds liking" revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 22, 817-836.
2.
Bianchi, S.M., Robinson, J.P., & Milkie, M.A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage.
3.
Blau, F.D., & Kahn, L.M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 7-23.
4.
Brennan, R.L., & Prediger, D.L. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 687-699.
5.
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 12, 1-49.
6.
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, 492-503.
7.
Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.
8.
Coontz, S. (2004). The world historical transformation of marriage . Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 974-979.
9.
Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
11.
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist , 54, 408-423.
12.
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (2006). Three ways that data can misinform: Inappropriate partialling, small samples, and anyway, they're not playing our song. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 131-137.
13.
Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the partner preferences of women and men. In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. S. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 269-295). New York: Guilford.
14.
Eastwick, P.W., Eagly, A.H., Glick, P., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., Fiske, S.T., Blum, A.M.B., et al. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603-614.
15.
Eastwick, P., & Finkel, E. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245-264.
16.
Epstein, C.F. (2007). Great divides: The cultural, cognitive, and social bases of the global subordination of women. American Sociological Review, 72, 1-22.
17.
Gagné, F.M., & Lydon, J.E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 322-338.
18.
Gangestad, S.W., Haselton, M.G., & Buss, D.M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry , 17, 75-95.
19.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies. New York : Guilford.
20.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
21.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536.
22.
Hochschild, A.R., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.
23.
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.
24.
Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 422-452.
25.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395-421.
26.
Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y.S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females' preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374-377.
27.
Kenrick, D.T., & Keefe, R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 15, 75-133.
28.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist , 41, 954-969.
29.
Richerson, P.J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Sweeney, M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The shifting economic foundations of marriage. American Sociological Review, 67, 132-147.
31.
Sweeney, M., & Cancian, M. (2004). The changing importance of White women's economic prospects for assortative mating. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1015-1028.
32.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Women in the labor force: A databook. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook2007.htm
33.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Estimated median age at first marriage, by sex: 1890 to the present (Table M6-2). Retrieved September 29, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.pdf
34.
Webber, G., & Williams, C. (2008). Part-time work and the gender division of labor . Qualitative Sociology, 31, 15-36.
35.
Wilkie, J.R., Ferree, M.M., & Ratcliff, K.S. (1998). Gender and fairness: Marital satisfaction in two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 577-594.
36.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A.H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.
37.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A.H. (2007). Social structural origins of sex differences in human mating. In S. W. Gangestad & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies (pp. 383-390). New York: Guilford.
