Previous studies on sex-differentiated mate preferences have focused on univariate analyses. However, because mate selection is inherently multidimensional, a multivariate analysis more appropriately measures sex differences in mate preferences. We used the Mahalanobis distance (D) and logistic regression to investigate sex differences in mate preferences with data secured from participants residing in 37 cultures (n = 10,153). Sex differences are large in multivariate terms, yielding an overall D = 2.41, corresponding to overlap between the sexes of just 22.8%. Moreover, knowledge of mate preferences alone affords correct classification of sex with 92.2% accuracy. Finally, pattern-wise sex differences are negatively correlated with gender equality across cultures but are nonetheless cross-culturally robust. Discussion focuses on implications in evaluating the importance and magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences.
AnderssonM. B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
BussD. M. (1987). Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In CrawfordC.SmithM.KrebsD. (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 335-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14.
4.
BussD. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164-168.
5.
BussD. M.BarnesM. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
6.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
7.
BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134-146.
8.
BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K.KirkpatrickL. A.LarsenR. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491-503.
CronbachL. J.GleserG. C. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 456-473.
11.
Del GiudiceM. (2009). On the real magnitude of psychological sex differences. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 264-279.
12.
Del GiudiceM.BoothT.IrwingP. (2012). The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS ONE, 7, e29265.
13.
DixsonA. F.HalliwellG.EastR.WignarajahP.AndersonM. J. (2003). Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 29-39.
14.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (1983). Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 107-112.
15.
GangestadS. W.HaseltonM. G.BussD. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75-95.
16.
GildersleeveK.HaseltonM. G.FalesM. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 1205-1259.
17.
GoetzC. D.EastonJ. A.LewisD. M.BussD. M. (2012). Sexual exploitability: Observable cues and their link to sexual attraction. Evolution & Human Behavior, 33, 417-426.
18.
GrøntvedtT. V.KennairL. E. O. (2013). Age preferences in a gender egalitarian society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7, 239-249.
19.
HydeJ. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373-398.
20.
JanssenI.HeymsfieldS. B.WangZ.RossR. (2000). Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18–88 yr. Journal of Applied Physiology, 89, 81-88.
21.
KenrickD. T.KeefeR. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-91.
22.
KhalladY. (2005). Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 155-168.
23.
LassekW. D.GaulinS. J. (2009). Costs and benefits of fat-free muscle mass in men: Relationship to mating success, dietary requirements, and native immunity. Evolution & Human Behavior, 30, 322-328.
24.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.
25.
LippaR. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631-651.
26.
MarloweF. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15, 365-376.
27.
MeyerG. J.FinnS. E.EydeL.KayG. G.MorelandK. L.DiesR. R.. . .ReedG. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128-165.
28.
PerrettD. I.LeeK. J.Penton-VoakI.RowlandD.YoshikawaS.BurtD. M.AkamatsuS. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884-887.
29.
PettayJ. E.HelleS.JokelaJ.LummaaV. (2007). Natural selection on female life-history traits in relation to socio-economic class in pre-industrial human populations. PLoS ONE, 2, e606.
30.
RosnowR. L.RosenthalR. (2003). Effect sizes for experimenting psychologists. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 57, 221-237.
31.
SchmittD. P. (2012). When the difference is in the details: A critique of Zentner and Mitura (2012) “Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences.”Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 720-726.
32.
SchmittD. P. (2014). The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are . . . it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In Weekes-ShackelfordV. A.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 221-256). New York, NY: Springer.
33.
SinghD. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
34.
SmithR. J.JungersW. L. (1997). Body mass in comparative primatology. Journal of Human Evolution, 32, 523-559.
35.
StevensJ. P. (1984). Outliers and influential data points in regression analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 334-344.
36.
SugiyamaL. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In BussD. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292-343). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
37.
SungK. K.PoggioT. (1998). Example-based learning for view-based human face detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20, 39-51.
38.
SymonsD. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
WiedermanM. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 331-351.
43.
WilliamsG. C. (1975). Sex and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
ZellE.KrizanZ.TeeterS. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10-20.
45.
ZentnerM.MituraK. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 1176-1185.
46.
ZhaoW.ChellappaR.PhillipsP. J.RosenfeldA. (2003). Face recognition: A literature survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 35, 399-458.
47.
ZihlmanA. L.McFarlandR. K. (2000). Body mass in lowland gorillas: A quantitative analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 61-78.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
