Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication

Walter KV 1 , Conroy-Beam D 1 , Buss DM 2 , Asao K 2 , Sorokowska A 3 , Sorokowski P 4 Show all authors , Aavik T 5 , Akello G 6 , Alhabahba MM 7 , Alm C 8 , Amjad N 9 , Anjum A 9 , Atama CS 10 , Atamtürk Duyar D 11 , Ayebare R 12 , Batres C 13 , Bendixen M 14 , Bensafia A 15 , Bizumic B 16 , Boussena M 17 , Butovskaya M 18 , Can S 19 , Cantarero K 20 , Carrier A 21 , Cetinkaya H 22 , Croy I 23 , Cueto RM 24 , Czub M 3 , Dronova D 18 , Dural S 19 , Duyar I 11 , Ertugrul B 25 , Espinosa A 24 , Estevan I 26 , Esteves CS 27 , Fang L 28 , Frackowiak T 3 , Garduño JC 29 , González KU 30 , Guemaz F 31 , Gyuris P 32 , Halamová M 33 , Herak I 34 , Horvat M 35 , Hromatko I 36 , Hui CM 28 , Jaafar JL 37 , Jiang F 38 , Kafetsios K 39 , Kavčič T 40 , Kennair LEO 14 , Kervyn N 34 , Khanh Ha TT 41 , Khilji IA 42 , Köbis NC 43 , Lan HM 41 , Láng A 32 , Lennard GR 16 , León E 24 , Lindholm T 8 , Linh TT 41 , Lopez G 44 , Van Luot N 41 , Mailhos A 26 , Manesi Z 45 , Martinez R 46 , McKerchar SL 16 , Meskó N 32 , Misra G 47 , Monaghan C 16 , Mora EC 48 , Moya-Garófano A 46 , Musil B 49 , Natividade JC 50 , Niemczyk A 3 , Nizharadze G 51 , Oberzaucher E 52 , Oleszkiewicz A 3 , Omar-Fauzee MS 53 , Onyishi IE 54 , Özener B 11 , Pagani AF 44 , Pakalniskiene V 55 , Parise M 44 , Pazhoohi F 56 , Pisanski A 48 , Pisanski K 3 , Ponciano E 57 , Popa C 58 , Prokop P 59 , Rizwan M 60 , Sainz M 61 , Salkičević S 62 , Sargautyte R 55 , Sarmány-Schuller I 63 , Schmehl S 52 , Sharad S 64 , Siddiqui RS 65 , Simonetti F 66 , Stoyanova SY 67 , Tadinac M 62 , Varella MAC 68 , Vauclair CM 27 , Vega LD 30 , Widarini DA 69 , Yoo G 70 , Zat'ková M 33 , Zupančič M 71

Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
  • 2 Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin
  • 3 Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw
  • 4 Institute of Psychology, University of Opole
  • 5 Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu
  • 6 Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine, Gulu University
  • 7 English Language Department, Middle East University
  • 8 Department of Psychology, Stockholm University
  • 9 Institute of Applied Psychology, University of the Punjab
  • 10 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Nigeria
  • 11 Department of Anthropology, Istanbul University
  • 12 North Star Alliance, Kampala, Uganda
  • 13 Department of Psychology, Franklin and Marshall College
  • 14 Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  • 15 Laboratory Education-Formation-Travail (EFORT), Department of Sociology, University of Algiers
  • 16 Research School of Psychology, Australian National University
  • 17 Laboratory EFORT, Department of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Algiers
  • 18 Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences
  • 19 Department of Psychology, Izmir University of Economics
  • 20 Social Behavior Research Center, Faculty in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities
  • 21 Psychology Faculty (Center for the Study of Social Behavior), Université Catholique de Louvain
  • 22 Department of Psychology, Ankara University
  • 23 Department of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden
  • 24 Grupo de Psicología Política y Social, Departamento de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
  • 25 Department of Anthropology, Sivas Cumhuriyet University
  • 26 Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de la República
  • 27 Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (CIS-IUL)
  • 28 Department of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • 29 Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Unidad Morelia
  • 30 Psychology Department, Universidad Latina de Costa Rica
  • 31 Laboratory EFORT, Department of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Setif
  • 32 Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs
  • 33 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care, Department of Psychological Sciences, Constantine the Philosopher University
  • 34 Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organisations, Université Catholique de Louvain
  • 35 Faculty of Arts, Department of Psychology, University of Maribor
  • 36 Department of Psychology, Faculty for Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb
  • 37 Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Malaya
  • 38 Organization and Human Resource Management, Central University of Finance and Economics
  • 39 Psychology Department, University of Crete
  • 40 Faculty of Education, University of Primorska
  • 41 Department of Psychology, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
  • 42 Department of Psychology, Islamabad Model College for Boys, F-10/4, Islamabad
  • 43 Department of Economics, Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Mating, University of Amsterdam
  • 44 Department of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
  • 45 Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • 46 Department of Social Psychology, University of Granada
  • 47 Department of Psychology, University of Delhi
  • 48 Department of Animal and Human Biology, Faculty of Biology, University of Havana
  • 49 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor
  • 50 Department of Psychology, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
  • 51 Department of Social Sciences, Free University of Tbilisi
  • 52 Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna
  • 53 School of Education, Universiti Utara Malaysia
  • 54 Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria
  • 55 Institute of Psychology, Vilnius University
  • 56 Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia
  • 57 Institute of Psychology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro
  • 58 Department of Psychology, Faculty for Humanities and Social Sciences, Universitatea Nationala de Arta Teatrala si Cinematografica-Centrul Internațional de Cercetare şi Educație în Tehnologii Inovativ Creative (UNATC-CINETIc), Romanian Academy
  • 59 Department of Environmental Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University
  • 60 Delve Business Network, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • 61 School of Psychology, University of Monterrey
  • 62 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb
  • 63 Center for Social and Psychological Sciences, Institute of Experimental Psychology, Slovak Academy of Sciences
  • 64 Department of Applied Psychology, Vivekananda College, University of Delhi
  • 65 Department of Management Sciences, DHA Suffa University
  • 66 School of Psychology, Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile
  • 67 Department of Psychology, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"
  • 68 Department of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of São Paulo
  • 69 Faculty of Communication, University Prof. Dr Moestopo (Beragama), Jakarta, 10270, Indonesia
  • 70 Department of Child and Family Studies, Kyung Hee University
  • 71 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana
Psychol Sci, 2020 Apr;31(4):408-423.
PMID: 32196435 DOI: 10.1177/0956797620904154

Abstract

Considerable research has examined human mate preferences across cultures, finding universal sex differences in preferences for attractiveness and resources as well as sources of systematic cultural variation. Two competing perspectives-an evolutionary psychological perspective and a biosocial role perspective-offer alternative explanations for these findings. However, the original data on which each perspective relies are decades old, and the literature is fraught with conflicting methods, analyses, results, and conclusions. Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), we attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives. Support for universal sex differences in preferences remains robust: Men, more than women, prefer attractive, young mates, and women, more than men, prefer older mates with financial prospects. Cross-culturally, both sexes have mates closer to their own ages as gender equality increases. Beyond age of partner, neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications