Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:21:37.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex and Culture Similarities and Differences in Long-Term Partner Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2012

Félix Neto ,
Maria da Conceição Pinto  and
Adrian Furnham
Félix Neto*
Affiliation:
Universidade do Porto, Portugal
Maria da Conceição Pinto
Affiliation:
Universidade do Porto, Portugal
Adrian Furnham
Affiliation:
Research Department of Clinical, Health and Educational Psychology, University College London, UK
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Félix Neto, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, Universidade do Porto, rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal. E-mail <fneto@fpce.up.pt>.
Get access

Abstract

A number of studies have described different preference patterns typically found for women and men when selecting a long-term partner. Despite the number of investigations on the topic, one must be careful not to generalise because most studies use samples of North American undergraduates. In this study, heterosexual participants from Brazil and Portugal rated the desirability characteristics in a possible long-term partner. The sample was composed of 402 participants, of whom 187 were Brazilian (92 women and 95 men) from Brasília University, Brazil; and 215 were Portuguese (121 women and 94 men) from Porto University, Portugal. Participants of each culture responded to the same 18 items, measuring four factors: personality, physical attractiveness, resources, and abilities. As predicted, women rated indicators of personality, resources, and abilities significantly higher than men, who rated physical attractiveness higher. Brazilian students rated resources higher than did Portuguese students. The findings are discussed in the context of some evolutionary and sociocultural notions posited in explanations of mating behaviour. Limitations of this methodology are discussed.

Keywords

cross-culturalevolutionary psychologysex differencesmate preferencessocio-economic development
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 3 , December 2012 , pp. 57 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bond, M.H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.K., Reimel de Carrasquel, S., Murukami, F., . . . Rees Lewis, J. (2004). Culture-level dimension of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–570.Google Scholar
Botwin, M.D., Buss, D. M., & Shakhelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M., & Barnes, M. (1986) Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M. (1985) Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47–51.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M. (1987) Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In Crawford, C., Smith, M., & Krebs, D. (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology: Issues, goals and findings (pp. 335–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M., Abbot, M., Angleitner, A., Asharian, A., Biaggio, A., & Blanco-Villasenor, A., . . . Yang, K.-S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.Google Scholar
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, 491–503.Google Scholar
Campos, L.S., Otta, E., & Siqueira, J.O. (2002). Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analysis and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 395–406.Google Scholar
Chang, L., Wang, Y., Shackelford, T.K., & Buss, D. (2011) Chinese mate preferences: Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 678–683.Google Scholar
Doosje, B., Rojahn, K., & Fisher, A. (1999). Partner preferences as a function of gender, age, political orientation and level of education. Sex Roles, 40, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.Google Scholar
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 Eagly, A.H., Beall, A., & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 269–295). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the paternal investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538.Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., O'Loughlin, C., Friesen, M. & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 654–672.Google Scholar
Fletcher, G., Simpson, J., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999) Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furnham, A. (2009). Sex differences in mate selection preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 622–627.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S.G., Haselton, M.G., & Buss, D.M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: An illustration using human mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil-Burmann, C., Peláez, F., & Sánchez, S. (2002). Mate choice differences according to sex and age: An analysis of personal advertisements in Spanish newspapers. Human Nature, 13, 493–508.Google Scholar
Goodwin, R., & Tang, D. (1991). Preferences for friends and close relationship partners: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 579–581.Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Men's and women's preferences in marital patterns in United States, Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 728–750.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D.T., Dadalla, E.K., Groth, G., & Trost, M.R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116.Google Scholar
Khallad, Y. (2005). Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005) Hurrydate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.Google Scholar
Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., & Manning, J. (2003). Second to fourth digit ration, testosterone and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270, 2167–2162.Google Scholar
Neto, F. (2005). Sex diferences in Portuguese lonely hearts advertisements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 393–400.Google Scholar
Neto, F. (2009). Predictors of mental health among adolescents from immigrant families in Portugal. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 375–385.Google Scholar
Neto, F., Mullet, E., Deschamps, J., Barros, J., Benvindo, R., Camino, L., Falconi, A, Kgibanga, V., & e Machado, M. (2000). Cross-cultural variations in attitudes toward love. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 626–635.Google Scholar
Neto, F., Williams, J., & Widner, S. (1991). Portuguese children's knowledge of sex stereotypes: Effects of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 376–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oda, R. (2001). Sexuality dismorphic mate preferences in Japan: An analysis of lonely hearts advertisements. Human Nature, 12, 191–206.Google Scholar
Otta, E., Queiroz, R.S., Campos, L.S., Silva, M.W., & Silveria, M.T. (1999). Age differences between spouses in a Brazilian marriage sample. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 99–103.Google Scholar
Parmer, T. (1998). Characteristics of preferred partners: Variations between African American men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 461–471.Google Scholar
Rajecki, D.W., Bledsoe, S.B., & Rasmussen, J.L. (1991). Successful personal ads: Gender differences and similarities in offers stipulations and outcomes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 457–469.Google Scholar
Regan, P.C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F.S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–20.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T., Schmitt, D., & Buss, D. (2005) Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, S., Stinnet, H., & Rosenfeld, L.B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationships patterns. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, E., Shakhelford, T., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Socioeconomic development and shifts in mate preferences. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 447–455.Google Scholar
Sugiyama, L. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In Buss, D.M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–342). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. (1999). The scent of symmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 175–201.Google Scholar
Toro-Morn, M., & Sprecher, S. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of mate preferences among university students: The United States vs. the People's Republica of China (PRC). Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 151–170.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2010). The 2010 Human Development Report. New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Hove: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, J.E., Best, D.L., Ward, C., & Neto, F. (1990). Sex stereotypes in Portugal and Singapore. In Keats, D.M., Munro, D., & Mann, L. (Eds.), Heterogeneity in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 520–528). Lisse: Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Wilson, G., & Cousins, J. (2003). CQ (Compatibiltiy Quotient). London: Fusion Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, C. (2009) Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1226–1244.Google Scholar