Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study replicated Buss et al.’s (2001) international survey of mate preferences for long-term relationships within an Arab Jordanian context. As predicted, the findings confirmed the existence of commonly reported sex differences, in that our sample of Jordanian male college students showed greater interest in potential mates’ good looks and youth compared to female students, who displayed greater preference for mates exhibiting economic ability and commitment. The findings further indicated that women’s differential preferences for resource- and commitment-related attributes were mainly determined by sex rather than by socioeconomic status. The study also found that Jordanians value the same attributes that have been universally considered important to have in a mate, namely love, kindness, and a pleasing disposition. Belonging to a developing traditional society, this sample of Jordanian students, as anticipated, included religiosity and refinement/neatness among their top preferences. Also, the study corroborated the casually observed social phenomenon of aversion to marrying divorcees among Jordanians, with men in this sample being particularly disinclined to seek this type of mate. The findings are discussed in the context of some evolutionary and socio-cultural notions posited in explanations of mating behavior.

Keywords

culture Jordanians mate preferences sex socio-economic status values

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brand, L. A. (1998). Women, the state, and political liberalization: Middle Eastern and North African experiences. New York: Columbia University Press .

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

Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating . American Scientist, 82, 238-249 .

Buss, D. M. , Abbot, M. , Angleitner, A. , Asharian, A. , Biaggio, A. , & Blanco-Villasenor, A. , et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47 .

Buss, D. M. , & Barnes, M. F. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570 .

Buss, D. M. , & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating . Psychological Review, 100, 204-232 .

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 & Family, 63, 491-503 .

Daly, M. , & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .

Daly, M. , & Wilson, M. (1996). Evolutionary psychology and marital conflict: The relevance of stepchildren. In D. M. Buss & N. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Feminist, and evolutionary perspectives (pp. 9-28). New York: Oxford University Press .

10.

Daly, M. , Wilson, M. , & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy . Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11-27 .

11.

Dickemann, M. (1981). Paternal confidence and dowry competition: A biocultural analysis of Purdah. In R. D. Alexander & D. W. Tinkle (Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior (pp. 417-438). New York: Chiron Press .

12.

Doosje, B. , Rojahn, K. , & Fischer, A. (1999). Partner preferences as a function of gender, age, political orientation and level of education . Sex Roles, 40, 45-60 .

13.

Doumato, E. A. , & Posusney, M. P. (Eds.). (2003). Women and globalization in the Arab Middle East. Boulder, CO: Rienner .

14.

Eagly, A. H. , & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles . American Psychologist, 54, 408-423 .

15.

Eagly, A. H. , Wood, W. , & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for partner preferences of women and men. In A. H. Eagly , A. Beall , & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 269-295). New York: Guilford Press .

16.

El Saadawi, N. (1980). The hidden face of Eve: Women in the Arab World. New York: St. Martin Press .

17.

Gangestad, S. W. , & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644 .

18.

Hobart, C. (1991). Conflict in remarriages . Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 15, 69-86 .

19.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. Deregowski , S. Dzuirawiec , & R. Annis (Eds.), Explications in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 535-555). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger .

20.

Inglehart, R. , & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

21.

Kasser, T. , & Sharma, Y. S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females’ preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates . Psychological Science, 10, 374-377 .

22.

Kenrick, D. T. , Groth, G. , Trost, M. , & Sadalla, E. L. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social change perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969 .

23.

Kenrick, D. T. , & Keefe, R. F. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133 .

24.

Luszyk, D. (2001). Gender-specific mating preferences: A contribution to the discussion between evolutionary psychology and social role theory. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie. English abstract available [accessed 6 October 2002]: http://www.psycontent.com/abstracts/hh/zsp/2001/02/body-zsp3202095.html

25.

Smith, P. B. , & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall .

26.

Todosijevic, B. , Ljubinkovic, S. , & Arancic, A. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia . Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 116-126 .

27.

Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study . Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 173-206 .

28.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 36-179). Chicago: Aldine .

29.

Tzannatos, Z. , & Kaur, I. (2003). Women in the MENA labor market: An eclectic survey. In E. A. Doumato & M. P. Posusney (Eds.), Women and globalization in the Arab Middle East (pp. 55-72). Boulder, CO: Rienner .

30.

White, L. K. , & Booth, A. (1985). The quality and stability of remarriages: The role of step-children . American Sociological Review, 50, 689-698 .

31.

Wiederman, M. W. , & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115-124 .

32.

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 .

Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex,socio-economic status,and culture

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References