Parent–offspring conflict over mate choice: An experimental study in China

Abstract

Both parents and offspring have evolved mating preferences that enable them to select mates and children-in-law to maximize their inclusive fitness. The theory of parent-offspring conflict predicts that preferences for potential mates may differ between parents and offspring: individuals are expected to value biological quality more in their own mates than in their offspring's mates and to value investment potential more in their offspring's mates than in their own mates. We tested this hypothesis in China using a naturalistic 'marriage market' where parents actively search for marital partners for their offspring. Parents gather at a public park to advertise the characteristics of their adult children, looking for a potential son or daughter-in-law. We presented 589 parents and young adults from the city of Kunming (Yunnan, China) with hypothetical mating candidates varying in their levels of income (proxy for investment potential) and physical attractiveness (proxy for biological quality). We found some evidence of a parent-offspring conflict over mate choice, but only in the case of daughters, who evaluated physical attractiveness as more important than parents. We also found an effect of the mating candidate's sex, as physical attractiveness was deemed more valuable in a female potential mate by parents and offspring alike.

Arranged Marriage Often Subverts Offspring Mate Choice: An HRAF‐Based Study

“…While this is possible, it is unlikely since existing research consistently shows that, compared to their parents, unmarried adults generally prioritize traits such as physical attractiveness (a potential sign of genetic quality) in a variety of cultures (Apostolou 2015; Bovet et al. 2018; Buunk and Castro Solano 2010; Buunk, Park, and Dubbs 2008; Dubbs and Buunk 2010; Hynie, Lalonde, and Lee 2006; Perilloux, Fleischman, and Buss 2011).…”

“…One exception is a study conducted in an arranged‐marriage market in China, which found disagreement only between parents and daughters, who preferred physical attractiveness more than their parents did (Bovet et al. 2018). Another study of Chinese immigrants to North America also shows more valuation of attractiveness by offspring than by parents, while parents placed a higher priority than their offspring on mates who were “traditional” (Hynie, Lalonde, and Lee 2006).…”

Daughter Guarding

“…Parents are more likely to control offspring behavior if parent-daughter opinions differ, thus creating a cycle of conflict specific to daughters. This cycle may lead to daughter guarding and monitoring of behaviors (Bovet et al 2018). Furthermore, there is a causal relationship between parental monitoring and daughter sensitivity.…”

What Is the Impact of Choosing One’s Spouse on Marital Satisfaction of Wives and Husbands? The Case of Arranged and Self-Choice Turkish Marriages

“…On the one end, self-choice marriages, which, as noted, are based on free will, personal affection, physical attraction, and compatibility, may be expected to lead to higher marital quality than those arranged by the families. On the other end, spouses in arranged marriages, which tend to be approved by the parents and kin, may be more likely to benefit from their support (Applbaum, 1995), and from higher status and resource-acquisition potential in the partner, as judged by parents (Bovet, Raiber, Ren, Wang, & Seabright, 2017). Unfortunately, the few studies that have explored marital satisfaction in those two type of marriages have not produced a consistent picture; some studies, including those in Turkey, concluding that satisfaction tends to be stronger in self-selected than in arranged marriages (e.g., Allendorf & Ghimire, 2013; Demir & Fişiloğlu, 1999; Hortaçsu, 2007; Imamoğlu, 1993; Lev-Wiesel & Al-Krenawi, 1999; Pimentel, 2000; Xu & Whyte, 1990), others reporting the opposite (e.g., Madathil & Benshoff, 2008; Yelsma & Athappilly, 1988), and still others reporting no significant differences (e.g., Hoelter, Axinn, & Ghimire, 2004; Myers, Madathil, & Tingle, 2005; Regan, Lakhanpal, & Anguiano, 2012; Schwartz, 2007).…”