Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 746

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International Preferences in Selecting Mates: A Study of 37 Cultures

Open access
Buss, David M., Abbott, Max, Angleitner, Alois, Asherian, Armen, Biaggio, Angela, Blanco-Villasenor, Angel, Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., Ch'U, Hai-Yuan, Czapinski, Janusz, Deraad, Boele, Ekehammar, Bo, El Lohamy, Noha, Fioravanti, Mario, Georgas, James, Gjerde, Per, Guttman, Ruth, Hazan, Fatima, Iwawaki, Saburo, Janakiramaiah, N., Khosroshani, Fatemeh, Kreitler, Shulamith, Lachenicht, Lance, Lee, Margaret, Liik, Kadi, Little, Brian, Mika, Stanislaw, Moadel-Shahid, Mariam, Moane, Geraldine, Montero, Maritza, Mundy-Castle, A. C., Niit, Toomas, Nsenduluka, Evaristo, Pienkowski, Ryszard, Pirttilä-Backman, Anna-Maija, De Leon, Julio Ponce, Rousseau, Jacques, Runco, Mark A., Safir, Marilyn P., Samuels, Curtis, Sanitioso, Rasyid, Serpell, Robert, Smid, Nico, Spencer, Christopher, Tadinac, Meri, Todorova, Elka N., Troland, Kari, Van Den Brande, L., Van Heck, Guus, Van Langenhove, L., Yang, Kuo-Shu·1990·Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
DOI 10.1177/0022022190211001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study sought to identify the effects of culture and sex on mate preferences using samples drawn world-wide. Thirty-seven samples were obtained from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands (N = 9,474). Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed strong effects of both culture and sex, moderated by specific mate characteristics. Chastity proved to be the mate characteristic on which cultures varied the most. The preference ordering of each sample was contrasted with an international complement. Each culture displayed a unique preference ordering, but there were some similarities among all cultures as reflected in a positive manifold of the cross-country correlation matrix. Multidimensional scaling of the cultures yielded a five dimensional solution, the first two of which were interpreted. The first dimension was interpreted as Traditional versus Modern, with China, India, Iran, and Nigeria anchoring one end and the Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland, and Sweden anchoring the other. The second dimension involved valuation of education, intelligence, and refinement. Consistent sex differences in value attached to eaming potential and physical attractiveness supported evolution-based hypotheses about the importance of resources and reproductive value in mates. Discussion emphasizes the importance of psychological mate preferences for scientific disciplines ranging from evolutionary biology to sociology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022022190211001

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., Ch'U, H.-Y., Czapinski, J., Deraad, B., Ekehammar, B., El Lohamy, N., Fioravanti, M., Georgas, J., Gjerde, P., Guttman, R., Hazan, F., Iwawaki, S., Janakiramaiah, N., Khosroshani, F., Kreitler, S., Lachenicht, L., Lee, M., Liik, K., Little, B., Mika, S., Moadel-Shahid, M., Moane, G., Montero, M., Mundy-Castle, A. C., Niit, T., Nsenduluka, E., Pienkowski, R., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M., De Leon, J. P., Rousseau, J., Runco, M. A., Safir, M. P., Samuels, C., Sanitioso, R., Serpell, R., Smid, N., Spencer, C., Tadinac, M., Todorova, E. N., Troland, K., Van Den Brande, L., Van Heck, G., Van Langenhove, L., & Yang, K.-S.
Venue
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1990-03
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
5-47
ISSN
  • 0022-0221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5422
DOI
10.1177/0022022190211001
OpenAlex
W2164481280
Cited by
746
References
2
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.