How Sexually Dimorphic Are Human Mate Preferences?
Abstract
Previous studies on sex-differentiated mate preferences have focused on univariate analyses. However, because mate selection is inherently multidimensional, a multivariate analysis more appropriately measures sex differences in mate preferences. We used the Mahalanobis distance ( D) and logistic regression to investigate sex differences in mate preferences with data secured from participants residing in 37 cultures ( n = 10,153). Sex differences are large in multivariate terms, yielding an overall D = 2.41, corresponding to overlap between the sexes of just 22.8%. Moreover, knowledge of mate preferences alone affords correct classification of sex with 92.2% accuracy. Finally, pattern-wise sex differences are negatively correlated with gender equality across cultures but are nonetheless cross-culturally robust. Discussion focuses on implications in evaluating the importance and magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Regarding partner preferences, men and women tend to value somewhat different capacities in their partners (rs = .48-.84).
“Regarding partner preferences, men and women tend to value somewhat different capacities in their partners (rs = .48–.84; Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Conroy-Beam et al., 2015; Zentner & Mitura, 2012).”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Conroy-Beam et al., 2015
Cites
Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204 · Cited by 4,253 · see citing works
Self-citationSkeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18–88 yr
Janssen, I., Heymsfield, S. B., Wang, Z., & Ross, R. (2000) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2009) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.04.002 · Cited by 397 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Nonetheless, these unidimensional differences are generally considered evidence of sexual dimorphism (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009) and are comparable with, and even smaller than, the sex difference in the overall pattern of mate choice.”
ResultThe Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality
Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029265 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences
Archer, J. (2019) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12507 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Mac Giolla, E., & Kajonius, P. J. (2019) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1002/ijop.12529 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox
Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231202685 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“Data collected by Buss (1989) were analyzed by Eagly and Wood (1999), Conroy-Beam et al. (2015), and Zentner and Mitura (2012).”
InfluentialSimpson’s gender-equality paradox
Berggren, M., & Bergh, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2422247122 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“It is also remarkable that mate preferences, one of the most prominent examples of an evolutionary argument for divergent traits among men and women, shows no gender - equality paradox to start with ( 40 , 44 , 53 , 54 ).”
- Authors
- Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Texas at Austin, USA
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Oakland University (US)
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-06-11
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1082-1093
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W1644364133
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 18.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
- Keywords
- mate preferences, sex differences, sexual dimorphism, mate choice, gender equality, cross-cultural comparison, Mahalanobis distance, multivariate analysis, classification accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Courtship, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Estonia, Female, Germany, Humans, Human Rights, Israel, Male, Marriage, Sexual Behavior, Sex Characteristics, Sexual Partners, South Africa, Taiwan, Yugoslavia, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Sexism
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
