Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
ABSTRACT Contemporary mate preferences can provide important clues to human reproductive history. Little is known about which characteristics people value in potential mates. Five predictions were made about sex differences in human mate preferences based on evolutionary conceptions of parental investment, sexual selection, human reproductive capacity, and sexual asymmetries regarding certainty of paternity versus maternity. The predictions centered on how each sex valued earning capacity, ambition— industriousness, youth, physical attractiveness, and chastity. Predictions were tested in data from 37 samples drawn from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands (total N = 10,047). For 27 countries, demographic data on actual age at marriage provided a validity check on questionnaire data. Females were found to value cues to resource acquisition in potential mates more highly than males. Characteristics signaling reproductive capacity were valued more by males than by females. These sex differences may reflect different evolutionary selection pressures on human males and females; they provide powerful cross-cultural evidence of current sex differences in reproductive strategies. Discussion focuses on proximate mechanisms underlying mate preferences, consequences for human intrasexual competition, and the limitations of this study.
- SourceAvailable from: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh
Article: Abolishing GDP[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Expectations and information about the growth of GDP per capita have a large influence on decisions made by private and public economic agents. It will be argued here that GDP (per capita) is far from a robust indicator of social welfare, and that its use as such must be regarded as a serious form of market and government failure. This article presents an update on the most important criticisms of GDP as an indicator of social welfare and economic progress. It further examines the nature and extent of the impact of GDP information on the economy, revisits the customary arguments in favour of the GDP indicator, and critically evaluates proposed alternatives to GDP. The main conclusion is that it is rational to dismiss GDP as an indicator to monitor economic progress and to guide public policy. As is clarified, this conclusion does not imply a plea against growth, innovation or national accounting.Tinbergen Institute, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers. 01/2007;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this paper it is claimed that the many advances accomplished by developmental psychology during the last century (due mostly to the generation and testing of different theories about development) have been made to the cost of both a certain frag- mentation of the field, and a lack of appropriate dia- lectical explanations that truly grasp the complexi- ties of developmental processes. It is suggested that, if developmental psychology takes biological knowledge seriously, particularly evolutionary theory, there might be a chance to improve both its internal cohesion and its social impact, as well as to provide more accurate explanations about how psychological development works out. En este artículo se sostiene que los numerosos avances experimentados por la psicología del de- sarrollo durante el siglo XX (debidos en buena parte a las distintas conceptualizaciones teóricas del desarrollo generadas) se han logrado a costa de una excesiva fragmentación de la disciplina, y una ausencia de explicaciones que recojan de forma verosímil la complejidad de los procesos de desarrollo. Aquí se sugiere que una psicología del desarrollo que tome los conocimientos apor- tados por las ciencias biológicas en serio, y, más concretamente, la teoría de la evolución, mejorará en coherencia interna, relevancia social, y explicará de forma más apropiada el desarrollo.Avances en psicología latinoamericana, ISSN 1794-4724, Vol. 27, Nº. 2, 2009, pags. 241-251. 01/2009;
- Personal Relationships 01/2003; 10(3):307-332. · 1.41 Impact Factor