Mating preferences

Mate preferences in humans refers to why one human chooses or chooses not to mate with another human and their reasoning why (see: Evolutionary Psychology, mating). Men and women have been observed having different criteria as what makes a good or ideal mate (gender differences). A potential mate's socioeconomic status has also been seen as having a noticeable effect, especially in developing areas where social status is more emphasized.^[1]

Gender differences

Several studies have shown that females are more selective in picking mates, with men requiring less time to consent to sex than women, as well as wanting more sexual partners and short-term relationships.^[2] The difference between short- and long-term relationships can change how an individual pursues a mate. For instance, when searching for a long-term mate, women often tend to emphasize resources—i.e., can this mate provide for her and the potential family. However, in the short term, a potential mate's physical attractiveness is weighed more heavily because it is a good indicator of desirable genes.^[3][4]

Predictors for long-term relationship success

In a study conducted by Shackleford, Schmitt, & Buss (2005),^[5] four dimensions were found that seem to predict how compatible two people are in what they're looking for in a long-term relationship. The survey was given to over 9,800 people from 37 different cultures across 6 continents and 5 islands. The four dimensions are:

• Love vs. Status/Resources—trade-off between a loving relationship and a partner with adequate resources and status
• Dependable/Stable vs. Good Looks/Health—trade-off between choosing an emotionally stable partner and one that is physically attractive
• Education/Intelligence vs. Desire for Home/Children—trade-off between educational factors and a range of family matters like wanting of kids and chastity
  

  Long term relationship success has been found to have four important factors
• Sociability vs. Similar Religion—tradeoff between a partner who is sociable and a partner that is religiously similar or compatible.

The four dimensions found imply that males and females weigh how important they view the two sides of each dimension to them in a long term relationship. In the dimension of Love vs. Status/Resources, the higher a person scores on that scale, more emphasis they place on Love and less on Status/Resources. A common example of this would be the concept of extraversion and introversion; if a person ranks high on extraversion, they're considered extraverts, but a person scoring low would be considered an introvert. Using this example, a high score would indicate Love as most important, and a low score would indicate Status/Resources as most important. This applies to the other three dimensions as well, with the first concept pairing being the higher end of the spectrum and the second concept pairing being the lower-end. A positive or negative score only shows direction, not inherent value.

There were several gender differences observed in the study. For instance, men seemed to rate Love vs Status/Resources higher in importance in relation to women, meaning men place more of an emphasis on mutual love while women place more of an emphasis on Status/Resources.^[5] Women rated higher the other three dimensions in importance. A majority of cases saw women rate Dependable/Stable vs. Good Looks/Health higher, implying a stable personality is more desirable to women than a physically attractive mate.^[5] Education/Intelligence vs. Desire for Home/Children was also rated higher, showing that similar educational background and political views are more important than home life, and a small number of cases had women rank Sociability vs. Similar Religion higher (a pleasing disposition is more important than sharing religious beliefs).^[5]

In sum, men appear to value physical attractiveness, health, and a want for home life and children in their long-term mates, whereas women appear to value maturity, dependability, education, social status, and financial stability.

References