Original articleThe effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences
Introduction
Studies on human mate preferences have reported a number of sex differences. Women typically prefer older partners (e.g., Buss, 1989a, Kenrick & Keefe, 1992, Otta et al., 1999, Waynforth & Dunbar, 1995). They have stronger preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics in a partner whereas men have stronger preferences for physical attractiveness (e.g., Buss, 1989a, Buss, 1990, Buss, 1994, Buss & Barnes, 1986, Feingold, 1990, Feingold, 1991, Feingold, 1992, Hill, 1945, Li et al., 2002, Waynforth & Dunbar, 1995). These sex differences have been attributed to sex-specific reproductive constraints: the minimal investment in reproduction by a female is greater than that of a male owing to the costs of producing large gametes (Bateman, 1948), internal gestation, lactation, and extended parental care (Trivers, 1972). Thus, female reproductive success is constrained by access to the resources necessary to raise costly offspring whereas male reproductive success is constrained by access to fertile females (Trivers, 1972). Consequently, women should prefer partners who demonstrate willingness and ability to invest direct resources in offspring (e.g., partners with resource-acquisition characteristics or older partners with greater accumulated resources) and men should prefer cues to reproductive capacity and fertility (e.g., a healthy, attractive appearance).
High levels of intrasexual variation, however, implicate complexity and trade-offs in human mate preferences (e.g., Smuts, 1989, Smuts, 1991a, Smuts, 1991b, Waynforth & Dunbar, 1995). In addition to providing direct resources through investment of parental care, males can also provide offspring with indirect heritable qualities (Trivers, 1972). Males possessing high heritable fitness are likely to be successful at pursuing short-term mating strategies and, as a consequence, are less likely to provide parental care and investment in long-term relationships (Waynforth, 1999). Thus, females must trade off the importance of obtaining genetic quality versus material resources in a partner (see work of Gangestad & Simpson, 2000, and Waynforth, 2001).
Most studies on human mate preferences have used samples from societies with cash economies and a division of labor in which women have historically been constrained in their participation in the workforce (e.g., Buss & Barnes, 1986, Hrdy, 1997). When women can only secure resources through a partner, they may benefit from choosing a partner with material resources over a partner with indirect heritable qualities. It has been argued that when females can access the resources necessary to raise offspring independently, the importance of male investment of resources in offspring will decrease (Cashdan, 1993, Gangestad, 1993, Low, 1990). Concordant predictions come from the social structural theory, which posits that socialization of the sexes into gender roles is responsible for sex differences in mate preferences (Eagly & Wood, 1999, Wood & Eagly, 2002); that is, men and women attempt to fill specific gender roles (female as homemaker and male as breadwinner). Mate preferences reflect attempts to maximize resources denied to each sex by gender roles. Although the social structural and “adaptive trade-offs” perspectives both predict decreased magnitudes of sex differences in mate preferences with increasing sexual equality, they offer differing explanations for the mechanisms by which these shifts would occur. The perspectives may, however, be compatible and offer proximate-level and ultimate-level explanations, respectively (Wood & Eagly, 2002).
Studies on the effects of female status on mate preferences have yielded conflicting results. Positive relationships have been reported between (a) expected female income and preference rankings for resource-acquisition characteristics (e.g., Townsend, 1989, Wiederman & Allgeier, 1992); (b) female income and importance placed on the potential income of a partner (Buss, 1989b); and (c) female income and requests for resources in lonely-hearts advertisements (Gil-Burmann et al., 2002). In addition, positive assortative mating has been reported for cultural and economic status (Kalmijn, 1994) and educational attainment and socioeconomic origins (Kalmijn, 1991). Conversely, Johannesen-Schmidt and Eagly (2002) reported positive relationships between the extent to which females endorsed the traditional female gender role and preferences for good earning potential and age in a partner. Similarly, Koyama, McGain, and Hill (2004) reported a negative relationship between importance placed on “good earning potential” in a partner and feminist attitudes. Furthermore, in reanalyses of Buss's (1990) data from 37 cultures, Eagly and Wood (1999) found female empowerment to be negatively correlated with female preferences for male earning potential and older partners and Kasser and Sharma (1999) reported a negative relationship between educational equality and female preference for male resource-acquisition characteristics. Two studies have reported positive relationships between female status and preferences for a cue to heritable quality in a partner: women's participation in economies (Gangestad, 1993) and own-rated financial prospects (Koyama et al., 2004) were found to relate positively to preferences for physical attractiveness in a partner.
Evidence for an effect of female resources on preferences for direct investment of resources versus indirect genetic benefits is not conclusive. Female economic status does not appear to be associated with diminished preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics in a partner but is associated with preferences for physical attractiveness. Conversely, attitudes associated with endorsement of a less-traditional gender role are associated with decreased preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics. Gangestad and Simpson (2000) proposed that these discrepancies reflect differences in the measures used. Wealth may not be the same as the power tapped by measurement of attitudes toward sexual equality or cultural measurements of female empowerment. Alternatively, measurement of attitudes may not tap the actual ability of individuals to provide for offspring independently. We argue that assessment of control of resources includes the effects of both access to resources (as previously measured by income) and autonomy (as previously tapped by measures of attitudes), providing a measure of ability to provide for offspring independently without the confounding effects of assortment for wealth. It is predicted that the ability of females to acquire and control the resources necessary to raise offspring will allow preferences to shift toward indirect heritable benefits, as the importance of acquiring resources from a partner decreases. Thus, the aims of the current study were to (a) develop a measure of resource control at the level of the individual and (b) assess relationships between this and female mate preferences. Our study is unique in investigating the effects of control of resources on mate preferences, in examining the effects of autonomy at the level of the individual, and in using a sample more representative of the general population than previous studies.
Previous research have indicated that measures of female control of resources do not covary such that they can be usefully combined to provide a single measure (Low, 1990, Whyte, 1978, Whyte, 1979, Yanca & Low, 2004). Such studies have used measures including control of the fruits of one's labor, control of dwellings, and authority over others in the family and the community (Low, 1990, Whyte, 1978, Whyte, 1979, Yanca & Low, 2004). Thus, we developed a series of questionnaire items designed to assess the extent to which individuals independently acquire and control resources and possess power (i.e., exert authority over others).
To summarize, it was predicted that female resource control will influence the trade-off between preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics and those for indirect genetic benefits. Increasing female control of resources was predicted to be associated with (a) decreased preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics in a partner and (b) increased preferences for physical attractiveness. We predicted that the effects of resource control would differ from those of income and expected positive relationships between income and preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics (because of assortative mating). We assessed preferences for resource-acquisition characteristics and cues to indirect heritable benefits through ranking of partner characteristics. In addition, preferences for age in a partner provided a measure of an indirect preference for accumulated resources.
Section snippets
Participants
A total of 4359 female participants (mean age=24.23 years, S.D.=9.59) completed the online test. We identified and removed 2638 duplicate data entries (i.e., the same participant completing the test, or parts of the test, more than once) using a random number allocated at the start of the test. Only the participants aged between 18 and 35 years (n=2992) and those who reported being completely heterosexual (n=2788) were included in analyses. A total of 1851 females met these criteria (mean
Sample characteristics
Of all the participants, 80% indicated Caucasian ethnicity, 8% Asian, 1% Afro-Caribbean, and 11% “other”; 42% indicated residence in the UK, 3% other Western Europe, 4% Eastern Europe, and 51% “other”; 56% were single or in a casual relationship and 44% were in a serious relationship or married. Most participants were in the middle brackets for current income (60%) and parents' income while growing up (85%). In addition, most had been university or college educated (87%).
Resource control
Measures of
Discussion
We isolated two resource control factors (financial independence and power and ambition) from female responses to questionnaire items and examined relationships between these and mate preferences in females. Financial independence and power was associated with older minimum partner ages tolerated and preferences for physical attractiveness over good financial prospects in a partner. Ambition was associated with younger maximum partner ages tolerated. Our results suggest resource control to be
Acknowledgments
We thank Michael Burt and Michael Stirrat for their technical assistance and Lynda Boothroyd and Gillian Brown for their useful discussion and advice. This research was supported by BBSRC and MRC studentships.
References (47)
- et al.
Self-reported mate preferences and “feminist” attitudes regarding marital relations
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2004) - et al.
Age differences between spouses in a Brazilian marriage sample
Evolution and Human Behavior
(1999) Preference and behavior—Response
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1991)The present also explains the past—Response
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1991)Mate selection criteria: A pilot study
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1989)Differences in time use for mating and nepotistic effort as a function of male attractiveness in rural Belize
Evolution and Human Behavior
(1999)- et al.
Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socio-economic explanation?
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1992) - et al.
Female allies and female power—A cross-cultural analysis
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2004) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila
Heredity
(1948)Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
(1989)
Toward an evolutionary psychology of human mating
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology
The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating
Preferences in human mate selection
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating
Psychological Review
Attracting mates: Effects of paternal investment on mate attraction strategies
Ethology and Sociobiology
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
Optimal indicators of socioeconomic status for health research
American Journal of Public Health
The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles
American Psychologist
Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction—A comparison across 5 research paradigms
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Sex-differences in the effects of similarity and physical attractiveness on opposite-sex attraction
Basic Applications of Social Psychology
Gender differences in mate selection preferences—A test of the parental investment model
Psychological Bulletin
Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: Implications for mating dynamics
Human Nature
Cited by (43)
Spousal age-gaps, partner preferences, and consequences for well-being in four Colombian communities
2022, Evolution and Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :Another related issue is that, for women, nominal access to wealth does not necessarily indicate actual control over resources (e.g., inheritance may be matrilineal, but males may nonetheless exhibit de facto control, as in contemporary India, Bahrami-Rad, 2021). Indeed, the ways in which resource control affects women's preferences may be much more nuanced than is currently appreciated (Moore et al., 2006). In one example, among Himba women in Namibia, resource insecurity does not appear to impact relationship preferences, except among the subset of women with both high food insecurity and a large number of dependent children (Prall & Scelza, 2020).
Shared interests or sexual conflict? Spousal age gap, women's wellbeing and fertility in rural Tanzania
2021, Evolution and Human BehaviorRace/ethnicity and criminal behavior: Neurohormonal influences
2017, Journal of Criminal JusticeValues associated with luxury brand consumption and the role of gender
2017, Journal of Business ResearchCitation Excerpt :Women's and men's respective focus on refinement vs. elitism and exclusivity can be viewed as an adaptive process in mate selection. This process may lead women to capture attention, and lead men to compete with their challengers by displaying attributes and material resources sought by women (Moore, Cassidy, Smith, & Perrett, 2006). However, as Wood and Eagly (2013) state, culture or biology alone cannot account for gender differences.
Social dialect and men's voice pitch influence women's mate preferences
2014, Evolution and Human BehaviorDo bedroom eyes wear political glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction
2012, Evolution and Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :More specifically, the more financially secure a woman is, the more likely she is to post political content in her dating profile. One potential reason this might be the case is because women who are more financially successful have less need for resources from potential mates (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Moore et al., 2006). The data also show that as education increases, men are more likely to include political interests and “middle of the road” preferences as part of their dating profile.