Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross‐cultural test of the mate preference priority model

Abstract

Objective Mate choice involves trading‐off several preferences. Research on this process tends to examine mate preference prioritization in homogenous samples using a small number of traits and thus provide little insight into whether prioritization patterns reflect a universal human nature. This study examined whether prioritization patterns, and their accompanying sex differences, are consistent across Eastern and Western cultures. Method In the largest test of the mate preference priority model to date, we asked an international sample of participants (N = 2,477) to design an ideal long‐term partner by allocating mate dollars to eight traits using three budgets. Unlike previous versions of the task, we included traits known to vary in importance by culture (e.g., religiosity and chastity). Results Under low budget conditions, Eastern and Western participants differed in their mate dollar allocation for almost every trait (average d = 0.42), indicating that culture influences prioritization. Despite these differences, traits fundamental for the reproductive success of each sex in the ancestral environment were prioritized by both Eastern and Western participants. Conclusion The tendency to prioritize reproductively fundamental traits is present in both Eastern and Western cultures. The psychological mechanisms responsible for this process produce similar prioritization patterns despite cross‐cultural variation.

Gender differences in mate selection criteria among university students in Bangladesh: A study from the social homogamy perspective

“…In every society, culture has a significant impact on mate selection process. So it can be said that the mate selection criteria explored in the present study were based on culture, that were supported by many previous findings (e.g., Buss et al., 2001 ; Chen and Austin, 2017 ; Hamon and Ingoldsby, 2003 ; Mafra et al., 2021 ; Maliki, 2009 ; Nakahashi, 2017 ; Nongkynrih, 2016 ; O'Neil, 2006 ; Sassler, 2010 ; Souza et al., 2016 ; Thomas et al., 2020 ).…”

Proximate and Ultimate Perspectives on Romantic Love

“…While mate preferences are linked to actual mate selection (Li et al, 2013;Li and Meltzer, 2015;Buss and Schmitt, 2019), strong mate preferences do not always translate into real-world mate choice (Todd et al, 2007;Stulp et al, 2013). This is in part because mate preferences function in a tradeoff manner whereby some preferences are given priority over others (see Li et al, 2002;Thomas et al, 2020). That is, mate choice is a multivariate process that includes the integration and tradeoff of several preferences .…”

Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value

“…This espousal of care to acquire mating opportunities appears most apparent for men, as evidenced by previous work demonstrating experimentally heightened interest in LTM promotes men's public displays of benevolence, potentially reflecting a perception that women will attend to displays of character when identifying optimal fathers (Bleske-Rechek et al, 2006;Griskevicius et al, 2007). In fact, this prioritization of kindness emerges cross-culturally (Thomas et al, 2020).…”

“…Character strengths (McGrath, in press;Thomas et al, 2020; but see Gurven, von Rueden, Massenkoff, Kaplan, & Lero Vie, 2013). That is, when faced with survival and reproductive problems, ancestral humans who possessed traits deemed virtuous were thought to be afforded an adaptive advantage, which ensured the survival of their own genes.…”