Are Sex Differences in Preferences for Physical Attractiveness and Good Earning Capacity in Potential Mates Smaller in Countries With Greater Gender Equality?
Open accessAbstract
On average, women show stronger preferences for mates with good earning capacity than men do, while men show stronger preferences for physically attractive mates than women do. Studies reporting that sex differences in mate preferences are smaller in countries with greater gender equality have been interpreted as evidence that these sex differences in mate preferences are caused by the different roles society imposes on men and women. Here, we attempted to replicate previously reported links between sex differences in mate preferences and country-level measures of gender inequality in a sample of 3,073 participants from 36 countries (data and code available at https://osf.io/4sr5f/ ). Although women preferred mates with good earning capacity more than men did and men preferred physically attractive mates more than women did, we found little evidence that these sex differences were smaller in countries with greater gender equality. Although one analysis suggested that the sex difference in preferences for good earning capacity was smaller in countries with greater gender equality, this effect was not significant when controlling for Galton's problem or when correcting for multiple comparisons. Collectively, these results provide little support for the social roles account of sex differences in mate preferences.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Men value physical attractiveness (SMD = 0.55) and intelligence (SMD = 0.10) more than women do.
“men value physical attractiveness (SMD = 0.55; Eagly & Wood, 1999; Lippa, 2007; Zhang et al., 2019) and intelligence (SMD = 0.10; Lippa, 2007) more than women do”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2019
The Results report that men preferred physical attractiveness in potential mates more strongly than women did, but give estimates of 0.42 for ratings and 1.38 for rankings, not an SMD of 0.55. The intelligence claim cites Lippa (2007) alone, so it is not attributed to Zhang et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNo sex difference was seen for preference for domestic skills.
“No sex difference was seen for preference for domestic skills (Zhang et al., 2019).”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2019
Women value good earning capacity and niceness (SMD = 0.20) to a higher extent than men do.
“Although women value good earning capacity (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Zhang et al., 2019) and niceness (SMD = 0.20; Lippa, 2007) to a higher extent than men do”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 · Cited by 10,328 · see citing works
The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.6.408 · Cited by 1,499 · see citing works
International Preferences in Selecting Mates
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A. M. B., Blanco-Villaseñor, Á., Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., Ch'U, H.-Y., Czapiński, J., Raad, B. D., et al. (1990) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022190211001 · Cited by 746 · see citing works
Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408 · Cited by 503 · see citing works
Lippa, R. A. (2007) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L. G., Perrett, D. I., Penton‐Voak, I. S., Cooper, P. A., Penke, L., Feinberg, D. R., & Tiddeman, B. (2006) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3445 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Self-citationFatter Attraction: Anthropometric and Socioeconomic Matching on the Marriage Market
Chiappori, P., Oreffice, S., & Quintana‐Domeque, C. (2012) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/667941 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
TARGET ARTICLE: Evolutionary Foundations of Cultural Variation: Evoked Culture and Mate Preferences
Gangestad, S., Haselton, M., & Buss, D. (2006) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
What Can Cross-Cultural Correlations Teach Us about Human Nature?
Pollet, T. V., Tybur, J. M., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Rickard, I. J. (2014) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-014-9206-3 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612441004 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Anthropometry and socioeconomics among couples: Evidence in the United States
Oreffice, S., & Quintana‐Domeque, C. (2010) · Economics & Human Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2010.05.001 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y. S. (1999) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00171 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Cross-country relationships between life expectancy, intertemporal choice and age at first birth
Bulley, A., & Pepper, G. V. (2017) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.05.002 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Wincenciak, J., Fincher, C. L., Fisher, C. I., Hahn, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2014) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.12.004 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citationLee, A. J., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2018) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2018.0304 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication
Walter, K. V., Conroy‐Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Aavik, T., Akello, G., Alhabahba, M. M., Alm, C., et al. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620904154 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries
Atari, M., Lai, M. H. C., & Dehghani, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.1201 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Evolutionary psychology in marketing: Deep, debated, but fancier with fieldwork
Otterbring, T. (2021) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21453 · Cited by 70 · 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
“No sex difference was seen for preference for domestic skills (Zhang et al., 2019).”
InfluentialSex differences in human mate preferences vary across sex ratios
Walter, K. V., Conroy‐Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Aavik, T., Akello, G., Alhabahba, M. M., Alm, C., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2021.1115 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Using the VIA Classification to Advance a Psychological Science of Virtue
McGrath, R. E., & Brown, M. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565953 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Couple Simulation: A Novel Approach for Evaluating Models of Human Mate Choice
Conroy‐Beam, D. (2021) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868320971258 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Mate Preferences in Three Muslim-Majority Countries: Sex Differences and Personality Correlates
Atari, M., Chaudhary, N., & Al-Shawaf, L. (2019) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550619866187 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Conroy‐Beam, D., Walter, K. V., & Duarte, K. I. (2022) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.09.002 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value
Brown, M., Westrich, B., Bates, F., Twibell, A., & McGrath, R. E. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110249 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Brown, M. (2021) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/02654075211045051 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Hearing, touching, and multisensory integration during mate choice
Lenschow, C., Mendes, A. R. P., & Lima, S. Q. (2022) · Frontiers in Neural Circuits · doi:10.3389/fncir.2022.943888 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
The Role of Sexual and Romantic Attraction in Human Mate Preferences
Scheller, M., de Sousa, A. A., Brotto, L. A., & Little, A. C. (2023) · The Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224499.2023.2176811 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The sexual selection of creativity: A nomological approach
Novaes, F. C., & Natividade, J. C. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874261 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Meskó, N., Kowal, M., Láng, A., Kocsor, F., Bandi, S. A., Putz, Á., Sorokowski, P., Frederick, D. A., García, F. E., Durán, L. A. A., et al. (2023) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-023-02724-1 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Feminism and mate preference: A study on relational cognitive dissonance
Yurtsever, A., Korkmaz, A., & Cemalcılar, Z. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110297 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Kruger, D. J. (2021) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672211007229 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Culture shapes sex differences in mate preferences
Malovicki-Yaffe, N., Tratner, A. E., & McDonald, M. M. (2024) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2024.04.002 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
The Epistemology of Evolutionary Psychology Offers a Rapprochement to Cultural Psychology
Saad, G. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579578 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Naranjo, L. M., Gutiérrez, G., Departamento de Psicología, U. N. D. C., & Departamento de Psicología, U. N. D. C. (2021) · Suma Psicológica · doi:10.14349/sumapsi.2021.v28.n1.4 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Extensions of Sexual Strategies Theory across Peoples, Cultures, and Ecologies
Schmitt, D. P. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197536438.013.20 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Conroy‐Beam, D., Patton, J. Q., Goetz, C. D., Lukaszewski, A. W., & Bowser, B. J. (2023) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.09.007 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Larsen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., & Fisher, M. L. (2026) · Politics and the Life Sciences · doi:10.1017/pls.2026.10020 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Bai, R., He, L., Li, S., Xiang, R., & Xing, S. (2023) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-023-04869-7 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Islam, M. N. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07378 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Feminist Beliefs, Not Gender Equality Primes, Shape Self-Reported Partner Preferences
Wareham, N., Pákozdy, C., & Brown, G. R. (2024) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-024-01530-w · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Intersexual Selection
Aung, T., Conard, P., Crowell, D., Sanchez, J., & Pentek, W. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_722-1 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Partner preferences for resources adapt to income and gender economic inequality
Murphy, M., Harmon‐Jones, S. K., Harrington, A. G., Brooks, R. C., & Blake, K. R. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2527295123 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Does Wording Matter?: “Mate” versus “Partner” and Long-Term Relationship Preferences
(2021) · EvoS Journal · doi:10.59077/ygcz5899 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Sexual and Reproductive Issues II: Departures from Binary Sexual and Gender Viewpoints
Jacobs, A. J. (2021) · The International Library of Bioethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87698-2_13
(2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108943567.002
Arnocky, S. A., Davis, A. C., & Suszter, M. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108943567.007
A Narrative Review of Mate Choice: Evolutionary, Cognitive Orientation and Combined Perspectives
Eftekhari, A. (2022) · Iranian Evolutionary Educational Psychology Journal · doi:10.52547/ieepj.4.4.195
de Sousa, A. A., & Scheller, M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_893-1
Hammond, B. E., Wadhwa, S., Rattner, M., McCoy, R. T., & Bongar, B. M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2060-1
Tradeoffs between self and mates reveal larger sex differences in trait preferences
Reynolds, T. A., Baumeister, R. F., & von Hippel, W. (2025) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106774
Hacker, G., Jeffrey, C. E., & Park, A. E. (2025) · Women & Therapy · doi:10.1080/02703149.2025.2592561
Contextual Preferences for Growth Motivation in Mates
Brown, M., Gonzalez, N. J., & Bauer, J. J. (2025) · Evolutionary Psychological Science · doi:10.1007/s40806-025-00449-z
- Authors
- Zhang, L., Lee, A. J., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Jones, Benedict C.
- Venue
- Evolutionary Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-04-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1474704919852921-1474704919852921
- ISSN
- 1474-7049 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10481077
- OpenAlex
- W2902720398
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 6.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Evolutionary Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Commission (HORIZON2020, 705478)
- 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 choice, physical attractiveness, earning capacity, gender equality, cross-cultural comparison, replication, Galton's problem, multiple testing correction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Marriage, Sex Characteristics, Sex Factors, Sexual Partners, Socioeconomic Factors
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
