Content uploaded by Menelaos Apostolou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Menelaos Apostolou on Sep 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Parent–Offspring Conflict Over Mating:
Domains of Agreement and Disagreement
Menelaos Apostolou
1
Abstract
Evolutionary reasoning indicates that certain traits are more beneficial when they are found in a mate than in a son- or a daughter-
in-law, while other traits are more beneficial when they are found in a son- or a daughter-in-law than in a mate. This translates into
different evolutionary pressures exercised on in-law and mate preferences driving them to diverge. The purpose of this research
is to identify the domains over which in-law and mate choice is exercised, and following this, to identify the areas of agreement and
disagreement in these domains. In particular, using an extensive sample of parents (N¼1,717), Study 1 identifies 10 domains over
which mate and in-law choice is exercised. Study 2 employs a sample of families (N¼541) in order to compare the preferences of
parents with the preferences of their children. It is found that in-law and mate preferences diverge over several domains including
good looks, personality, and family background.
Keywords
parent–offspring conflict over mating, in-law preferences, mate preferences, parental choice
Date received: February 11, 2015; Accepted: July 27, 2015
Introduction
The evolutionary perspective indicates that parents and chil-
dren value specific traits differently in a prospective in-law and
mate, respectively (Apostolou, 2008a; Buunk, Park, & Dubbs,
2008; Schlomer, Del Giudice, & Ellis, 2011; Trivers, 1974).
There have been several research attempts to identify the traits
over which parents and children have diverging preferences
(see Apostolou, 2014b, for a review). The purpose of this work
is to advance this research by providing a comprehensive study
of the areas of disagreement and agreement. This is accom-
plished in two stages: First, the domains over which in-law and
mate choice is exercised are identified; and second, the pre-
ference of parents with the preferences of their children are
compared in order to identify the areas of agreement and
disagreement in these domains.
Parent–Offspring Conflict Over Mating
Parents and children are genetically related but not genetically
identical, which translates into their interests overlapping as
well as diverging (Schlomer et al., 2011; Trivers, 1974). One
area where this is manifested is mate choice, where the mating
decisions of children do not always meet the agreement of their
parents (Apostolou, 2008a, 2008b; Buunk et al., 2008; Schlo-
mer et al., 2011; Trivers, 1974; van den Berga, Fawcetta,
Buunk, & Weissinga, 2013). In particular, children and parents
tend to agree over how important several traits are in a pro-
spective partner for the former, but they tend to disagree about
the importance of several other traits.
Genetic quality constitutes a good example of this disagree-
ment. Prospective mates differ in their genetic quality: Some
carry more genetic mutations than others, while others have
alleles that can better withstand the challenges of the environ-
ment. Individuals are 0.50 related to their children and 0.25
related to their grandchildren (note that this refers to common
descent, that is, 50%of the genes individuals carry come from
one of their parents and 25%from one of their grandparents),
which means that it is beneficial to get mates and in-laws,
respectively, of good genetic quality, as this will lead to having
children and grandchildren with good chances of survival.
1
Social Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
Corresponding Author:
Menelaos Apostolou, Social Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Email: m.apostolou@gmail.com
Evolutionary Psychology
2015: 1–12
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1474704915604561
evp.sagepub.com
Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Nevertheless, this means also that it is more beneficial for
individuals to get mates of superior genetic quality rather than
in-laws of superior genetic quality. The reason being that indi-
viduals have more to lose if, due to poor genetic quality, their
children rather than their grandchildren suffer survival penal-
ties, since they are more closely related to the former than to the
latter. Consequently, parents and children would agree that
good genetic quality is important in a mate, but they would
disagree on how important it is, with the latter ascribing more
importance than the former (Apostolou, 2008a).
This disagreement can lead to conflict between the two,
predominantly due to the compromises mate choice entails.
More specifically, children are constrained by their own mate
value with regard to the mate value of the individual they can
attract. For instance, individuals looking for long-term mates
cannot attract mates of much greater value than their own
because these mates would not be willing to enter in such a
relationship, as it would be optimal for them to seek mates of
similar mate value to their own (Apostolou, 2011b; Buss,
2003). Therefore, mate choice inevitably involves compro-
mises. In order to be able to keep a long-term partner, mate
seekers may, for example, have to accept less attractive mates
than they would desire. Yet, the asymmetrical fitness benefits
that certain traits provide result into children making com-
promises which are not to the best interest of their parents
(Apostolou, 2011b).
In particular, as beauty (a proxy of genetic quality; see
Gangestad, Thornhill, & Yeo, 1994; Thornhill & Gangestad,
1993) is more beneficial in a mate than in an in-law, children
will be willing to compromise on traits such as social status and
family background in order to get a more attractive mate.
Nevertheless, because beauty is not as beneficial in an in-
law, the benefits from good looks will not balance the losses
from the compromises in other desirable qualities; thus, from
the parents’ point of view, these compromises are not optimal.
In different words, children’s mate choices inflict an opportu-
nity cost to parents, which equals to the traits they lose and
could get if they were to exercise mate choice for their children.
Consistent with this framework, one study asked children
and their parents to allocate a fixed budget of mate points
across different traits in a prospective spouse and in-law,
respectively (Apostolou, 2011b). It was found that individuals
compromised in traits such as good family background in order
to get more of other traits, such as beauty. Parents, however,
made different allocations, compromising more on traits such
as beauty to get more of other traits such as a good family and a
similar religious background. These traits may help parents to
increase their own social status (Ertem & Kocturk, 2008; Riley,
1994; Shadle, 2003), in order to ensure that their grandchildren
are socialized in a culturally appropriate manner and they will
receive care in old age (Dubbs, Buunk, & Taniguchi, 2013;
Riley, 1994). Overall, beauty in a prospective mate is beneficial
to both children and their parents, but it is more beneficial to
the former than to the latter. Hence, children are willing to
make compromises in other traits to get more of it, compro-
mises that are not to the best interest of parents.
Parent–offspring conflict over mating can also be under-
stood in the context of evolutionary trade-offs. The theory of
evolutionary trade-offs suggests that individuals high in genetic
quality are likely to be poorer quality parents, as they tend to
invest more effort into seeking and obtaining mates than in
raising children (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Children, in
comparison to their parents, benefit more by mating with an
individual of high genetic quality because genetic benefits will
be delivered to the resulting offspring. If the partner is a poor
quality parent, then the children can rely on their parents for
extra support in raising any resulting offspring. Nevertheless, if
the child opts for a partner with traits indicating high parental
investment and lower genetic quality, then the parents would
not need to invest extra resources into their child and grand-
children that might then be diverted to other children and
grandchildren (Dubbs et al., 2013; Gangestad & Simpson,
2000; Schlomer et al., 2011).
Domains of disagreement. Onelineofresearchemployeda
within-participants design to compare in-law and mate prefer-
ences. This design was based on the premise that both types of
preferences are active within a sexually mature individual who
is also a parent. That is, such an individual can act both as a
mate seeker and a parent (Apostolou, 2008a). Accordingly,
parents in the United Kingdom were asked to rate several traits
in a prospective spouse for themselves and in a prospective
spouse for their children. Individuals ascribed more value in
the good looks and in the exciting personality of a prospective
mate than of a prospective in-law, while they ascribed more
value in the good family background and in the similar reli-
gious background of a prospective in-law than of a prospective
spouse (Apostolou, 2008a, 2008b). This line of research was
based on an instrument that was predominantly developed to
measure mate preferences. Consequently, several domains of
disagreement may have been missed.
In order to identify the domains over which in-law and mate
choice takes place, another study employed an open-ended
questionnaire and found 86 traits individuals value in a pro-
spective in-law and in a prospective mate (Apostolou, 2011b).
On the basis of findings from anthropological studies, a subse-
quent study added two more traits to reach a list of 88 traits and,
by using principal components analysis, classified these into 11
broader domains (Apostolou, 2014a). On this basis, Apostolou
et al. (2014) constructed an instrument consisting of 11 items
and asked a sample of parents to rate their desirability in a
prospective mate and an in-law. It was found that individuals
ascribed more value in the exciting personality and in being
pleasant and cooperative in a prospective spouse than in an in-
law, while they ascribed more value in being family oriented
and in coming from a similar religious and ethnic background
in a prospective-in-law than in a mate.
In a similar line of research, individuals in the Netherlands
were asked to indicate how acceptable they considered a set of
traits in a spouse for themselves and how acceptable they
thought that their parents would consider the same set of traits
in a spouse for their children. It was found that participants
2Evolutionary Psychology
considered an unattractive mate who lacks exciting personality
as more unacceptable than their parents, while they considered
a mate who does not come from a good family background and
has a different religious background than their own, as more
acceptable than their parents (Buunk et al., 2008; Dubbs &
Buunk, 2010). Using a similar method, these findings were
replicated in an Uruguayan (Park, Dubbs, & Buunk, 2009),
an Argentinean (Buunk & Castro Solano, 2010), and a Japanese
sample (Dubbs et al., 2013).
One limitation of the above studies is that they make com-
parisons within individuals rather than between parents and
their actual children. To allow for this limitation, one study
asked American individuals to rate a set of 13 traits in a pro-
spective mate and their parents in a prospective son- and
daughter-in-law for their children (Perilloux, Fleischman, &
Buss, 2011). It was found that individuals ascribed more value
in attractiveness and personality than their parents, while their
parents ascribed more value in being religious. The main lim-
itation of this research is, however, that it employed an instru-
ment that was originally constructed to measure mate
preferences and as such may have failed to identify important
areas of disagreement.
Based on a different theoretical framework, another study
compared the mate preferences of 63 parent–child dyads of
Chinese-Canadian and ChineseAmerican immigrants (Hynie,
Lalonde, & Lee, 2006). It examined disagreement over four
dimensions, namely, attractiveness, social status, warmth/
understanding, and traditional values. It was found that sons
placed a greater emphasis on attractiveness than their parents,
but the difference between daughters and their parents was
marginal. In addition, it was found that parents emphasized
traditional values more than their children (see also Lalonde,
Hynie, Pannu, & Tatla, 2004). This study is also limited by the
fact that it was based on an instrument predominantly devel-
oped to investigate mate preferences, and it has only investi-
gated four dimensions of mating interest.
Overall, the current literature on parent–offspring conflict
over mating has several limitations, including being based on
instruments developed to measure mate preferences, and thus,
it may have missed important domains of disagreement. There
has been only one study that employed an instrument devel-
oped specifically for this purpose, which has only been exam-
ined in a within-participants design (i.e., Apostolou et al.,
2014). In addition, this instrument has been developed based
on principal components analysis, without any attempt to repli-
cate the factor structure in a different sample. Moreover, each
factor or domain has several facets, that is, it is composed of
several subtraits. Nevertheless, there has not been any attempt
to examine disagreement over these traits or over traits that do
not load on any factors (i.e., with factor loading below 0.300).
Last but not least, to the knowledge of the authors, there has
been only one evolutionary informed study that compares the
preferences of parents and the preferences of their actual chil-
dren (i.e., Perilloux et al., 2011).
The present research attempts to address these limitations
and to provide a comprehensive account of parent–offspring
agreement and disagreement over mate choice. In particular, it
aims to (a) identify the main domains, where mate and in-law
choice is exercised and (b) examine the agreement and dis-
agreement of parents and their actual children in (1) the broader
domains, (2) in the facets of each domain, and (3) in traits
which do not load in any domain.
Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 is to identify the primary domains of
interest over which mate and in-law choice are exercised.
Method
Participants
Eight research assistants were employed for the purposes of
this study. They recruited individuals who volunteered to par-
ticipate in a research on family relationships (no payment was
given). A snowball sampling technique was used, where the
research assistants recruited initially several parents and then
obtained references for other parents who may be interested in
participating in the study. The data collection process lasted
approximately 6 months. To qualify for participation, an indi-
vidual had to have at least one child. This research did not
employ couples, that is, fathers and mothers came from differ-
ent families. The participants were initially asked to sign a
consent form and then they were given the survey. Upon com-
pletion, the participants put the questionnaire in an unmarked
envelop and sealed it.
In this study, 1,717 Greek–Cypriots took part (908 women
and 809 men). The mean age of mothers was 45.4 (SD ¼8.6,
range ¼48) and the mean age of fathers was 48.9 (SD ¼9.4,
range ¼45). Participants had a mean of 1.5 (SD ¼0.7) male
children and a mean of 1.5 (SD ¼0.7) female children. The
mean age of the oldest female child was 20.4 (SD ¼9.1) and
the mean age of the oldest male child was 20.6 (SD ¼9.2).
Moreover, 85.5%of the participants were married, 11.5%were
divorced, 1.5%were widowed, 0.9%were single, and 0.6%
were in a relationship.
Materials
The survey had two parts. In the first part, participants
were asked to rate how desirable they considered a set of
traits to be in a prospective spouse for their children using
a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 ¼unimportant,1¼somehow
important,2¼important,and3¼indispensable). The
instrument employed to measure in-law preferences con-
sisted of 88 traits (e.g., family oriented, selfless, etc.) that
have been identified by previous research (Apostolou,
2011a, 2014a). In the second part, demographic informa-
tion was collected (sex, age, marital status, number of
daughters and sons, and ages of the oldest male child and
of the oldest female child).
Apostolou 3
Results
In order to classify traits in broader preference domains, prin-
cipal components method for factor extraction and direct obli-
min as the rotation method were used. Direct oblimin was
chosen because the assumption of noncorrelated preferences
is unlikely to hold. The results suggested a 10-factor solution
(eigenvalue > 1). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic was
.975, indicating an excellent sample adequacy. The factors and
the respective loadings are presented in Table 1. The scales
produced by this procedure were checked by means of relia-
bility analysis. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) ranged
from .76 to .91, with a mean of .82.
The factors ‘‘good looks,’’ ‘‘good cook-housekeeper,’’
‘‘well-off family background,’’ ‘‘similar religious and ethnic
background,’’ ‘‘family oriented,’’ ‘‘good economic prospects,’’
and ‘‘exciting personality’’ replicate previous factors (Aposto-
lou, 2014a). The ‘‘kind, understanding, and cooperative’’ is
similar to the ‘‘kind and understanding’’ factor, but traits
related to cooperativeness also load here. The ‘‘reliable and
mature’’ is similar to the ‘‘emotionally stable and mature;’’
however, in this case, items related to emotional stability do
not load. The ‘‘spontaneous and selfless’’ is similar to the
‘‘pleasant personality and cooperative,’’ but the item loadings
are different.
Finally, the ‘‘chastity’’ factor did not emerge here. One
possible reason is that in the Apostolou (2014a) study, the
factor structure was derived separately for daughters and for
sons, which was not the case for the current study. In addition,
in this cultural context, individuals are usually sexually expe-
rienced before marriage, which turns chastity not to be an
important consideration for parents, which may make it less
likely to be detected as a stand-alone factor.
Study 2
Study 2 aims to identify agreement and disagreement between
parents and their children in the domains found in Study 1.
Method
Participants
Four research assistants were employed for the purposes of this
study. They recruited families who volunteered to participate in
research on family relationships (no payment was given). To
qualify for participation, a family had to have at least one child
who was 16 years of age or older. The research assistants
visited families in their homes and administered the survey to
each family member who was willing to participate. Partici-
pants completed the questionnaire independently, and upon
completion, they put it in an unmarked envelop and sealed it.
In this study, 541 Greek–Cypriot families participated, con-
sisting of 979 parents (512 women and 467 men) and 644
children (295 daughters and 349 sons). The mean age of moth-
ers was 47 (SD ¼6.8, range ¼45) and the mean age for fathers
was 50.7 (SD ¼7.5, range ¼37). Daughters’ mean age was
Table 1. Factor Structure for the In-Law Preferences.
Factors In-Law
Kind, understanding, and cooperative
Patient .420
Understanding .402
Cooperative .346
Reasonable .345
Down to earth .318
Kind .308
Good manners .303
Good looks
Thin .660
Nice body .632
Good looking .617
Athletic .613
Beautiful eyes .539
Tall .471
Charming .352
Spontaneous and selfless
Selfless .691
Spontaneous .678
Sensitive .451
Longsighted .407
Imaginative .404
Extrovert .357
Modest .349
Strong personality .316
Open minded .301
Good cook-housekeeper
Good cook .771
Good housekeeper .728
Tidy .423
Well-off family background
From a wealthy family .706
Wealthy .647
Good social status .530
From a family of similar social status .480
Similar religious and ethnic background
Same nationality .824
Same religion .818
Religious .721
Similar political believes .380
Good family background .302
Reliable and tolerant
Tolerant .623
Serious .568
Calm .451
Reliable .417
Determined .408
Respectful .408
Ambitious .387
Generous .374
Good communication .335
Polite .300
Family oriented
Loves my daughter/son .701
Loves children .674
Good father/mother .672
Loves his/her family .663
Wants children .626
(continued)
4Evolutionary Psychology
22.2 (SD ¼5.8, range ¼35) and sons’ mean age was 21.8
(SD ¼5.6, range ¼28). With respect to mothers, 84.6%were
married, 16.6%were divorced, and 0.5%were widowed. More-
over, 74.5%of fathers were married, 11.5%were divorced,
0.2%were widowed, and 0.2%were single. With respect to
daughters, 66.2%were single, 16.8%in a relationship, 4.1%
were married, and 0.9%were divorced. Finally, 69.5%of sons
were single, 15.5%were in a relationship, 1.7%were married,
and 0.3%were divorced.
Materials
The survey was in Greek and it came in two versions, one
administered to parents and the other to their children. Each
version had two parts. In the first part, participants were asked
to rate the desirability of 88 traits employed in Study 1 in a
prospective spouse for their daughters and sons using a 4-point
Likert-type scale (0 ¼unimportant,1¼somehow important,
2¼important, and 3 ¼indispensable). The order of presenta-
tion (daughter and son) was counterbalanced across partici-
pants. In the second part of the version administered to
parents, demographic information was collected (sex, age, mar-
ital status, number of daughters and sons, and age of the oldest
male child and the oldest female child).
The survey administered to children had a similar format. In
the first part, participants were asked to rate the desirability of
the 88 traits in a prospective spouse for themselves using a
4-point Likert-type scale (0 ¼unimportant,1¼somehow
important,2¼important, and 3 ¼indispensable). In the sec-
ond part, demographic information was collected (sex, age, and
marital status).
Results
In order to examine whether parents and children differ in their
preferences, doubly multivariate analysis (which is statistically
equivalent to repeated measures multivariate analysis of var-
iance) was conducted for each of the 10 preferences. In each
comparison, the role (parent–child) entered as the independent
variable and the traits that composed each preference entered as
the dependent variables. Note that this analysis was appropriate
because a within-family design was employed, so children’s
and parents’ answers should not be considered independent.
The analysis was performed individually for mothers,
daughters and sons, and for fathers, daughters and sons. The
results are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Please note that the
design of the study did not allow for the sex of the parent to be
entered as an independent variable.
Not all traits loaded in the extracted factors (i.e., have a
factor loading above .300); however, we would like to know
if there was agreement and disagreement in these as well. For
this purpose, a series of paired-samples t-test was applied
between the ratings that mothers and their children, and fathers
and their children gave for each trait that did not load in any
factor. The results are presented in Table 3.
Finally, in each case (i.e., mother–daughter, mother–son,
father–daughter, father–son), 10 different tests (one for each
domain) were performed for each comparison which is likely to
inflate the alevel. Accordingly, Bonferroni correction was
applied to reduce ato .005 (.05/10). With respect to the com-
parisons of individual traits (Table 3), there are 13 comparisons
in each case, so the awas reduced to .003 (.05/13 ¼.003).
Mothers Versus Children
With respect to mothers and daughters, Table 2 indicates that
there was divergence in preferences over good looks, sponta-
neous and selfless, and exciting personality, with these being
valued more by daughters in a spouse than by their mothers in a
son-in-law. On the other hand, mothers placed more emphasis
than their daughters on similar religious and ethnic back-
ground. For the ‘‘reliable and tolerant’’ and family oriented,
there were differences that are not consistent to one direction.
That is, certain constituent traits were preferred more by daugh-
ters while others more by their mothers. Also, for most of the
constituent traits, significant differences were not found, indi-
cating that there was not much disagreement between mothers
and daughters. In addition, for good economic prospects, well-
off family background, and good cook-housekeeper, there was
agreement between mothers and daughters. Finally, from Table
3 we can see that ‘‘positive,’’ ‘‘energetic,’’ and ‘‘optimist’’
were preferred more by daughters in a husband than by their
mothers in a son-in-law.
Table 1. (continued)
Factors In-Law
Moral .614
Trustful .600
Honest .571
Faithful .558
Good character .487
Healthy .448
Sincere .447
Emotionally stable .434
Stable .389
Family oriented .300
Good economic prospects
Financially independent .760
Good provider .727
Good economic prospects .620
Educated .401
Industrious .380
Dynamic .370
Intelligent .338
Exciting personality
Cheerful .515
Good sense of humor .473
Sociable .467
Romantic .461
Entertaining .400
Exciting .391
Pleasant personality .378
Easygoing .321
Apostolou 5
Table 2. Comparisons Between Mothers and Their Children.
Preferences
Mother Daughter
pValue d
Mother Son
pValue dMean (SD) Means (SD) Mean (SD) Means (SD)
Kind, understanding, and cooperative 2.17 (0.55) 2.27 (0.55) .047 .18 2.16 (0.064) 2.09 (0.059) .538 .11
Patient 2.12 (0.85) 2.17 (0.81) .386 .06 2.09 (0.89) 2.04 (0.87) .352 .05
Understanding 2.14 (0.83) 2.32 (0.75) .001 .22 2.08 (0.88) 1.97 (0.94) .086 .12
Cooperative 2.11 (0.80) 2.16 (0.83) .393 .06 1.97 (0.95) 2.04 (0.85) .244 .07
Reasonable 2.23 (0.77) 2.22 (0.86) .858 .01 2.08 (0.94) 2.10 (0.92) .670 .02
Down to earth 2.12 (0.81) 2.20 (0.85) .156 .09 2.04 (0.97) 2.02 (0.94) .703 .02
Kind 2.37 (0.68) 2.37 (0.74) .952 .00 2.10 (0.91) 2.07 (0.96) .697 .03
Good manners 2.26 (0.82) 2.33 (0.87) .260 .08 2.24 (0.96) 2.21 (0.87) .637 .03
Good looks 1.38 (0.59) 1.63 (0.60) <.001 .42 1.40 (0.59) 1.76 (0.60) <.001 .62
Thin 1.26 (0.89) 1.40 (0.98) .027 .15 1.41 (0.97) 1.73 (0.99) <.001 .33
Nice body 1.49 (0.91) 1.69 (0.97) .001 .21 1.69 (0.89) 1.95 (0.98) .001 .28
Good looking 1.45 (0.90) 1.88 (0.92) <.001 .48 1.75 (0.93) 2.03 (0.92) <.001 .30
Athletic 1.50 (0.91) 1.68 (0.95) .003 .19 1.55 (0.92) 1.71 (0.99) .019 .18
Beautiful eyes 1.06 (0.93) 1.30 (0.93) <.001 .26 1.23 (0.86) 1.51 (0.91) <.001 .32
Tall 1.37 (0.95) 1.68 (0.97) .002 .22 1.30 (0.95) 1.41 (0.94) .149 .11
Charming 1.57 (0.87) 1.98 (0.88) <.001 .47 1.78 (0.90) 2.05 (0.90) <.001 .30
Spontaneous and selfless 1.65 (0.48) 1.80 (0.47) <.001 .32 1.65 (0.46) 1.70 (0.41) <.001 .11
Selfless 1.68 (0.84) 1.67 (0.87) .960 .01 1.49 (0.89) 1.51 (0.85) .688 .02
Spontaneous 1.55 (0.87) 1.72 (0.89) .007 .19 1.46 (0.88) 1.58 (0.89) .082 .13
Sensitive 1.67 (0.83) 1.70 (0.86) .633 .03 1.77 (0.82) 1.78 (0.86) .980 .01
Longsighted 1.64 (0.85) 1.61 (0.86) .879 .03 1.42 (0.85) 1.53 (0.89) .118 .12
Imaginative 1.28 (0.90) 1.65 (0.89) <.001 .41 1.29 (0.95) 1.68 (0.95) <.001 .41
Extrovert 1.48 (0.83) 1.72 (0.81) <.001 .29 1.48 (0.79) 1.64 (0.81) .009 .20
Modest 1.70 (0.88) 1.69 (0.90) .885 .01 1.84 (0.87) 1.74 (0.87) .112 .11
Strong personality 1.92 (0.86) 2.15 (0.79) <.001 .28 1.75 (0.87) 1.91 (0.84) .020 .19
Open minded 1.94 (0.87) 2.12 (0.81) .003 .21 1.97 (0.82) 1.91 (0.82) .353 .07
Good cook-housekeeper 1.57 (0.62) 1.56 (0.63) .017 .02 1.81 (0.68) 1.73 (0.63) .101 .12
Good cook 1.34 (0.91) 1.29 (0.95) .462 .05 1.66 (0.96) 1.53 (0.97) .079 .13
Good housekeeper 1.49 (0.83) 1.34 (0.85) .015 .17 1.75 (0.91) 1.63 (0.85) .070 .13
Tidy 1.95 (0.78) 2.06 (0.87) .096 .13 2.03 (1.01) 1.97 (0.97) .290 .06
Well-off family background 1.36 (0.71) 1.24 (0.74) .033 .17 1.33 (0.73) 1.33 (0.76) .001 .00
From a wealthy family 1.11 (0.99) 1.05 (1.04) .299 .06 1.11 (1.06) 1.29 (1.04) .010 .17
Wealthy 1.23 (0.99) 1.16 (1.05) .288 .07 1.35 (1.07) 1.29 (1.05) .453 .05
Good social status 1.72 (0.89) 1.59 (0.92) .046 .14 1.71 (0.93) 1.50 (0.97) .003 .22
From a family of similar social status 1.44 (0.96) 1.26 (1.01) .006 .18 1.37 (1.02) 1.24 (1.04) .078 .12
Similar religious and ethnic background 1.85 (0.54) 1.72 (0.59) .001 .23 1.80 (0.59) 1.61 (0.59) <.001 .32
Same nationality 2.09 (0.92) 1.81 (1) <.001 .29 1.96 (1.05) 1.66 (1.09) <.001 .28
Same religion 2.24 (0.92) 2.15 (0.98) .132 .09 2.07 (1.11) 1.98 (1.06) .149 .08
Religious 1.85 (0.81) 1.68 (0.93) .009 .19 1.94 (1.06) .82 (1.04) <.001 1.07
Similar political believes .95 (1) .87 (1.05) .117 .04 .90 (1.06) .82 (1.04) .230 .07
Good family background 2.17 (0.88) 2.12 (0.92) .458 .03 2.04 (1.02) 1.95 (1.02) .218 .09
Reliable and tolerant 2.08 (0.51) 2.15 (0.49) <.001 .14 2.03 (0.51) 1.95 (0.49) <.001 .15
Tolerant 1.96 (0.80) 2 (0.84) .560 .04 1.79 (0.87) 1.83 (0.90) .502 .04
Serious 2.09 (0.83) 1.96 (0.83) .033 .16 1.86 (0.95) 1.77 (0.90) .233 .09
Calm 1.98 (0.86) 1.93 (0.87) .410 .06 2.06 (0.82) 1.84 (0.92) .001 .25
Reliable 2.24 (0.80) 2.21 (0.89) .489 .03 2.09 (0.97) 1.92 (0.95) .013 .18
Determined 2.26 (0.80) 2.24 (0.83) .828 .02 1.95 (0.91) 2.01 (0.88) .419 .06
Respectful 2.33 (0.87) 2.49 (0.79) .001 .19 2.24 (0.90) 2.21 (0.91) .673 .03
Ambitious 1.65 (0.92) 1.69 (0.94) .443 .04 1.58 (0.92) 1.73 (0.91) .025 .16
Generous 2.20 (0.87) 2.17 (0.87) .665 .03 1.66 (0.89) 1.63 (0.82) .631 .03
Good communication 2.31 (0.84) 2.48 (0.84) .001 .20 2.15 (0.89) 2.32 (0.93) .008 .19
Polite 2.16 (0.81) 2.18 (0.86) .596 .02 2.10 (0.90) 2.01 (0.95) .152 .09
(continued)
6Evolutionary Psychology
Similar results were found for mothers and sons. More spe-
cifically, good looks, spontaneous and selfless, and exciting
personality were valued more by sons in a wife than by their
mothers in a daughter-in-law. As in the case of daughters,
mothers valued similar religious and ethnic background more
in a daughter-in-law than their sons in a wife. In addition, for
the ‘‘reliable and tolerant,’’ well-off family background, and
family oriented, there were differences that were not consistent
to one direction, whereas there was agreement for most traits
that compose them. Furthermore, for good economic prospects
and good cook-housekeeper, there was agreement between
mothers and sons. Finally, from Table 3, we can see that ‘‘pos-
itive’’ is valued more by sons in a prospective mate than by
their mothers in a daughter-in-law.
Fathers Versus Children
Regarding fathers and daughters, we can see from Table 4 that
daughters considered good looks, spontaneous and selfless,
kind, understanding and cooperative, exciting personality,
‘‘reliable and tolerant,’’ family oriented, and good economic
prospects more important in a husband than their fathers did in
a son-in-law. On the other hand, fathers considered more
important the well-off family background in a son-in-law than
their daughters did in a spouse. In addition, no significant dif-
ferences were found for the similar religious and ethnic back-
ground and the good cook-housekeeper preferences. Finally,
from Table 3, we can see that there were several traits such
as ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘sweet’’ which were preferred more by
daughters in a spouse than by their fathers in a son-in-law.
With respect to fathers and sons, good looks and sponta-
neous and selfless were considered as more important by sons
in a wife than by their fathers in a daughter-in-law. Similarly,
daughters placed more emphasis in the good economic pros-
pects of a prospective husband than their fathers in a prospec-
tive son-in-law. On the other hand, fathers considered well-off
family background, good cook-housekeeper, and similar reli-
gious and ethnic background more important in a daughter-
Table 2. (continued)
Preferences
Mother Daughter
pValue d
Mother Son
pValue dMean (SD) Means (SD) Mean (SD) Means (SD)
Family oriented 2.42 (0.57) 2.47 (0.56) <.001 .09 2.43 (0.57) 2.29 (0.61) <.001 .23
Loves my daughter/son 2.59 (0.82) 2.59 (0.86) 1.00 .00 2.41 (0.99) 2.52 (0.89) .056 .11
Loves children 2.54 (0.80) 2.40 (0.85) .007 .17 2.36 (0.93) 2.25 (1.02) .124 .11
Good father/mother 2.58 (0.83) 2.52 (0.87) .223 .07 2.50 (0.90) 2.28 (1.01) .001 .23
Loves his/her family 2.57 (0.85) 2.45 (0.85) .015 .14 2.43 (0.94) 2.30 (1.05) .050 .13
Wants children 2.37 (0.83) 2.32 (0.89) .340 .05 2.32 (0.93) 2.13 (1.01) .009 .20
Moral 2.36 (0.87) 2.33 (0.93) .686 .03 2.26 (0.93) 2.18 (0.93) .184 .08
Trustful 2.51 (0.76) 2.57 (0.82) .214 .07 2.25 (0.95) 2.33 (0.96) .112 .08
Honest 2.51 (0.84) 2.55 (0.77) .441 .04 2.46 (0.81) 2.27 (0.97) .003 .21
Faithful 2.51 (0.76) 2.50 (0.83) .988 .01 2.33 (0.92) 2.29 (0.95) .410 .04
Good character 2.45 (0.86) 2.55 (0.83) .080 .11 2.34 (0.93) 2.33 (0.92) .831 .01
Healthy 2.36 (0.80) 2.31 (0.88) .290 .05 2.32 (0.90) 2.28 (0.99) .520 .04
Sincere 2.40 (0.79) 2.55 (0.83) .001 .19 2.32 (1) 2.33 (0.96) .875 .01
Emotionally stable 2.52 (0.76) 2.50 (0.77) .631 .02 2.33 (0.90) 2.26 (0.97) .485 .07
Stable 2.47 (0.80) 2.40 (0.89) .258 .08 2.26 (0.94) 2.18 (0.97) .191 .08
Family oriented 2.28 (0.83) 2.20 (0.83) .186 .09 2.28 (0.84) 2.01 (0.92) <.001 .31
Good economic prospects 2.06 (0.57) 2.19 (0.54) .016 .23 1.87 (0.51) 1.78 (0.47) .060 .18
Financially independent 2.07 (0.91) 2.22 (0.92) .010 .16 1.72 (0.95) 1.68 (1.01) .532 .04
Good provider 1.98 (0.97) 2.03 (0.91) .409 .05 1.56 (0.92) 1.37 (0.88) .008 .21
Good economic prospects 2.02 (0.88) 2.05 (0.93) .549 .03 1.68 (0.90) 1.70 (0.93) .797 .02
Educated 2.09 (0.85) 2.18 (0.86) .132 .10 1.88 (0.88) 1.97 (0.96) .171 .10
Industrious 2.36 (0.89) 2.48 (0.82) .020 .14 2.17 (0.86) 2.03 (0.92) .031 .15
Dynamic 2.08 (0.77) 2.21 (0.82) .022 .16 1.73 (0.85) 1.72 (0.86) .957 .01
Intelligent 2.11 (0.81) 2.16 (0.83) .352 .06 1.96 (0.90) 1.94 (0.87) .868 .02
Exciting personality 1.79 (0.52) 2.07 (0.54) <.001 .53 1.79 (0.52) 1.90 (0.53) <.001 .21
Cheerful 1.98 (0.81) 2.18 (0.85) <.001 .24 1.88 (0.90) 1.97 (1.48) .351 .07
Good sense of humor 1.70 (0.90) 2.03 (0.88) <.001 .37 1.62 (0.92) 1.79 (0.90) .020 .19
Sociable 2.05 (0.83) 2.21 (0.79) .009 .20 1.97 (0.85) 1.97 (0.89) 1.00 .00
Romantic 1.68 (0.87) 2.04 (0.84) <.001 .42 1.56 (0.92) 1.91 (0.90) <.001 .38
Entertaining 1.71 (0.89) 1.98 (0.83) <.001 .31 1.63 (0.88) 1.96 (0.84) <.001 .38
Exciting 1.56 (0.86) 1.77 (0.89) .001 .24 1.62 (0.88) 1.72 (0.93) .146 .11
Pleasant personality 2.14 (0.77) 2.33 (0.83) <.001 .24 1.98 (0.82) 2 (0.89) .733 .02
Easygoing 1.81 (0.87) 1.89 (0.83) .251 .09 1.72 (0.89) 1.81 (0.88) .208 .02
Note. Significant main effects are in boldface.
Apostolou 7
in-law than their sons did in a wife. Also, for the ‘‘reliable
and tolerant’’ preference, there were differences that were
not consistent to one direction, whereas there was an over-
lap for most traits that compose them. Finally, for the kind,
understanding and cooperative, spontaneous and selfless,
and family oriented, there were no significant differences.
Interaction Effects
We would like to examine whether parents disagree more with
their daughters than with their sons or the reverse, that is,
whether in-law and mate preferences diverge more between
parents and daughter or the other way around. In different
words, we would like to investigate whether there is an inter-
action effect between the role (i.e., parent–child) and the sex of
the child. Toward this end, we repeated previous analysis by
entering the sex of the child as the independent variable.
More specifically, doubly multivariate analysis was con-
ducted for each of the 10 preferences, where role and sex of the
child were entered as the independent variables, and the traits
that composed each preference were entered as the dependent
variables. The analysis was performed twice, once for mothers
and children and once for fathers and children. No significant
interaction effects were found for any of the comparisons.
Discussion
The results indicate that parents do not agree with their children over
who might their ideal mate be. Disagreement is found in several
traits, but it appears that it is centered on three broader domains of
interest: good looks, personality, and family background.
To begin with, good looks were rated consistently more
important by daughters and sons than by their mothers and
fathers. Furthermore, both daughters and sons valued personality
traits that make an individual pleasant to be with more than their
parents. This is primarily reflected in the spontaneous and self-
less and the exciting personality preferences. This appears also
in traits such as positive, energetic, and optimistic, which did not
load in any of the 10 domains, but they were preferred more by
children in a spouse than by their parents in an in-law.
On the other hand, parents placed more emphasis on the
family background of a prospective in-law than their children
Table 3. Comparisons Between Parents and Children for Traits Which Do Not Load in the Extracted Factors.
Traits
Mother Daughter
pValue d
Mother Son
pValue dMean (SD) Means (SD) Mean (SD) Means (SD)
Mature 2.28 (0.79) 2.40 (0.70) .009 .15 2.18 (0.90) 2.17 (0.89) .955 .01
Confident 2.07 (0.85) 2.14 (0.82) .198 .08 2.01 (0.95) 1.95 (0.99) .359 .08
Positive 1.95 (0.89) 2.27 (0.83) <.001 .37 1.96 (0.91) 2.18 (0.91) <.001 .24
Sweet 1.80 (0.83) 1.95 (0.86) .019 .18 1.85 (0.89) 2 (0.90) .033 .17
Clean 2.31 (0.78) 2.26 (0.86) .056 .06 2.21 (0.92) 2.20 (0.96) .986 .01
Magnanimous 2.22 (0.83) 2.32 (0.79) .086 .12 2.03 (0.93) 2.08 (1) .413 .05
Affectionate 2.13 (0.73) 2.17 (0.73) .456 .05 1.95 (0.89) 1.96 (0.89) .958 .01
Few sexual experiences before marriage 1.37 (0.99) 1.29 (1.02) .243 .08 1.61 (1.13) 1.74 (1.13) .079 .11
Energetic 1.88 (0.92) 2.15 (0.79) <.001 .31 1.94 (0.90) 2 (0.94) .394 .06
Conscientious 2.17 (0.80) 2.22 (0.83) .345 .06 2.16 (0.88) 2.13 (0.95) .625 .03
Lively 1.99 (0.75) 2.12 (0.80) .020 .18 1.92 (0.82) 2.02 (0.89) .127 .11
Smiling 2.01 (0.73) 2.12 (0.83) .069 .14 2.10 (0.76) 2.08 (0.87) .355 .02
Optimist 2.14 (0.90) 2.40 (0.85) <.001 .30 2.16 (0.97) 2.19 (0.99) .715 .03
Traits Father Daughter Father Son
Mean (SD) Means (SD)pValue dMean (SD) Means (SD)pValue d
Mature 2.12 (0.96) 2.40 (0.74) <.001 .33 2.16 (0.91) 2.17 (0.90) .951 .01
Confident 2.03 (0.83) 2.09 (0.85) .311 .07 1.99 (0.94) 1.95 (1) .535 .04
Positive 1.94 (0.83) 2.25 (0.86) <.001 .37 1.99 (0.95) 2.18 (0.92) .008 .20
Sweet 1.66 (0.90) 1.94 (0.88) <.001 .31 1.9 (0.87) 2 (0.91) .174 .11
Clean 2.14 (0.88) 2.26 (0.83) .059 .14 2.11 (0.88) 2.19 (0.97) .212 .08
Magnanimous 2.10 (0.87) 2.37 (0.78) <.001 .33 1.97 (0.96) 2.09 (1.01) .097 .12
Affectionate 1.98 (0.86) 2.14 (0.74) .008 .20 1.96 (0.92) 1.94 (0.90) .766 .02
Few sexual experiences before marriage 1.19 (1.03) 1.37 (1.02) .030 .18 1.81 (1.13) 1.77 (1.13) .626 .03
Energetic 1.76 (0.85) 2.14 (0.81) <.001 .46 2.10 (0.84) 1.98 (0.94) .053 .13
Conscientious 2.02 (0.94) 2.22 (0.86) .001 .22 2.24 (0.85) 2.11 (0.96) .061 .14
Lively 1.86 (0.81) 2.10 (0.82) <.001 .29 2 (0.87) 1.98 (0.89) .773 .02
Smiling 1.74 (0.89) 2.09 (0.83) <.001 .41 1.99 (0.90) 1.90 (0.95) 1.95 .09
Optimist 2.19 (0.81) 2.37 (0.88) .005 .21 2.14 (0.90) 2.16 (1.01) .780 .02
Note. Significant effects are in boldface.
8Evolutionary Psychology
Table 4. Comparisons Between Fathers and Their Children.
Preferences
Father Daughter
pValue d
Father Son
pValue dMean (SD) Means (SD) Mean (SD) Means (SD)
Kind, understanding, and cooperative 2.05 2.28 <.001 .40 2.15 (0.58) 2.08 (0.59) .316 .11
Patient 2.01 (0.90) 2.17 (0.83) .018 .18 2.03 (0.94) 2.04 (0.89) .908 .01
Understanding 2.04 (0.84) 2.30 (0.76) <.001 .32 2.08 (0.87) 1.97 (0.96) .114 .12
Cooperative 2.02 (0.79) 2.15 (0.85) .036 .16 2.07 (0.76) 2.04 (0.85) .615 .03
Reasonable 2.02 (0.90) 2.20 (0.87) .002 .20 2.02 (0.89) 2.08 (0.92) .379 .06
Down to earth 2.04 (0.84) 2.19 (0.86) .017 .18 2.06 (0.83) 2.02 (0.94) .577 .04
Kind 2.10 (0.86) 2.36 (0.75) <.001 .32 2.04 (0.99) 2.06 (0.97) .785 .02
Good manners 2.14 (0.82) 2.29 (0.89) .027 .18 2.41 (0.95) 2.52 (0.89) .058 .11
Good looks 1.38 (0.57) 1.63 (0.60) <.001 .43 1.53 (0.63) 1.76 (0.60) .001 .37
Thin 1.30 (0.86) 1.46 (0.99) .018 .17 1.47 (0.97) 1.74 (0.99) .001 .28
Nice body 1.50 (0.89) 1.76 (0.95) <.001 .28 1.64 (1.02) 1.93 (0.99) <.001 .29
Good looking 1.43 (0.90) 1.91 (0.94) <.001 .57 1.93 (0.96) 2 (0.92) .391 .07
Athletic 1.56 (0.94) 1.73 (0.91) .014 .18 1.67 (1) 1.72 (0.99) .474 .05
Beautiful eyes .95 (0.86) 1.35 (0.93) <.001 .45 1.31 (0.93) 1.49 (0.91) .026 .20
Tall 1.34 (0.98) 1.64 (0.94) <.001 .31 1.32 (0.93) 1.41 (0.93) .245 .09
Charming 1.46 (0.85) 1.96 (0.88) <.001 .58 1.87 (0.93) 2.04 (0.90) .031 .19
Spontaneous and selfless 1.65 (0.45) 1.80 (0.47) <.001 .33 1.71 (0.48) 1.70 (0.41) .043 .02
Selfless 1.62 (0.86) 1.63 (0.88) .761 .01 1.61 (0.92) 1.51 (0.86) .181 .11
Spontaneous 1.63 (0.86) 1.70 (0.88) .253 .08 1.48 (0.84) 1.57 (0.89) .166 .10
Sensitive 1.59 (0.95) 1.74 (0.85) .050 .17 1.73 (0.87) 1.78 (0.86) .380 .05
Longsighted 1.60 (0.86) 1.64 (0.88) .761 .04 1.57 (0.87) 1.54 (0.90) .559 .03
Imaginative 1.41 (0.92) 1.68 (0.90) <.001 .30 1.51 (0.91) 1.69 (0.94) .020 .19
Extrovert 1.61 (0.82) 1.70 (0.82) .238 .10 1.59 (0.79) 1.67 (0.82) .187 .10
Modest 1.72 (0.90) 1.70 (0.91) .751 .02 1.87 (0.90) 1.75 (0.88) .078 .13
Strong personality 1.93 (0.80) 2.13 (0.80) .001 .25 1.72 (0.90) 1.90 (0.85) .011 .20
Open minded 1.83 (0.89) 2.12 (0.82) <.001 .34 1.89 (0.82) 1.89 (0.82) .823 .02
Good cook-housekeeper 1.52 (0.65) 1.56 (0.63) .053 .06 1.89 (0.66) 1.72 (0.63) .002 .26
Good cook 1.20 (0.97) 1.34 (0.94) .062 .14 1.76 (1.02) 1.55 (0.97) .008 .21
Good housekeeper 1.27 (0.98) 1.39 (0.83) .061 .13 1.81 (0.87) 1.65 (0.83) .021 .19
Tidy 1.97 (0.78) 2.08 (0.87) .071 .13 2.16 (0.87) 1.97 (0.98) .008 .21
Well-off family background 1.55 (0.74) 1.24 (0.74) <.001 .42 1.54 (0.73) 1.33 (0.76) <.001 .28
From a wealthy family 1.42 (1.08) 1.05 (1.05) <.001 .34 1.55 (1.11) 1.28 (1.05) .002 .25
Wealthy 1.54 (1.06) 1.18 (1.06) <.001 .34 1.72 (1.06) 1.29 (1.04) <.001 .41
Good social status 1.83 (0.92) 1.59 (0.91) <.001 .26 1.82 (0.99) 1.52 (0.97) <.001 .31
From a family of similar social status 1.42 (1) 1.32 (1) .112 .10 1.45 (1.01) 1.23 (1.03) .005 .22
Similar religious and ethnic background 1.76 (0.64) 1.72 (0.59) .076 .06 1.79 (0.63) 1.61 (0.59) .001 .29
Same nationality 1.90 (1.03) 1.86 (1.05) .560 .04 1.66 (1.15) 1.69 (1.09) .667 .02
Same religion 2.12 (0.92) 2.15 (0.99) .578 .03 2.02 (1.07) 1.98 (1.05) .640 .03
Religious 1.78 (0.83) 1.74 (0.91) .530 .04 1.76 (0.92) 1.66 (0.95) .146 .10
Similar political believes 1.00 (0.99) .90 (1.08) .125 .09 1.11 (1.09) .81 (1.04) <.001 .28
Good family background 1.98 (0.96) 2.12 (0.95) .041 .14 2.05 (1.02) 1.95 (1.02) .170 .10
Reliable and tolerant 2.05 (0.54) 2.15 (0.49) <.001 .19 2.03 (0.52) 1.95 (0.49) .003 .16
Tolerant 1.91 (0.88) 1.98 (0.85) .260 .08 1.91 (0.90) 1.82 (0.91) .225 .10
Serious 2.04 (0.91) 1.96 (0.83) .216 .09 1.90 (0.99) 1.79 (0.92) .104 .11
Calm 1.96 (0.90) 1.93 (0.86) .636 .03 2.01 (0.86) 1.85 (0.91) .020 .18
Reliable 2.11 (0.92) 2.16 (0.91) .421 .05 2.05 (0.91) 1.90 (0.96) .029 .16
Determined 2.09 (0.80) 2.23 (0.84) .040 .17 2.05 (0.90) 2.04 (0.90) .998 .01
Respectful 2.31 (0.87) 2.45 (0.81) .018 .17 2.22 (0.84) 2.19 (0.92) .567 .03
Ambitious 1.60 (0.88) 1.67 (0.96) .216 .07 2.62 (0.88) 2.73 (0.92) .113 .12
Generous 2.21 (0.85) 2.17 (0.88) .396 .04 1.66 (0.84) 1.61 (0.81) .461 .06
Good communication 2.17 (0.83) 2.45 (0.86) <.001 .33 2.08 (0.96) 2.31 (0.94) .002 .24
Polite 1.99 (0.88) 2.14 (0.88) .026 .17 2.13 (0.94) 2.02 (0.96) .093 .11
Family oriented 2.34 (0.59) 2.47 (0.56) <.001 .23 2.40 (0.58) 2.28 (0.61) .071 .20
Loves my daughter/son 2.49 (0.88) 2.56 (0.89) .253 .07 2.40 (0.95) 2.52 (0.90) .058 .12
Loves children 2.42 (0.85) 2.39 (0.87) .480 .03 2.34 (0.96) 2.27 (1.02) .279 .07
(continued)
Apostolou 9
on that of a prospective spouse. Parents were predominantly
concerned with their daughters- and sons-in-law coming from
families, which have similar characteristics to their own family.
Fathers also placed greater emphasis than their children on in-
laws coming from well-off families.
The current research confirms previous findings that there is
parent–offspring disagreement over good looks, and it identi-
fies that this is the case for most of the traits associated with this
domain. It further confirms that exciting personality is another
area of disagreement, while it reveals that this disagreement is
also found for the related spontaneous and selfless domain. In
addition, previous research has identified good family back-
ground and similar religious background to be a key area of
disagreement (Apostolou, 2008a, 2008b; Buunk et al., 2008;
Perilloux et al., 2011). The present research finds that these
traits constitute different facets of a preference for similarity
over religious and ethnic background, which was preferred
more in an in-law than in a spouse.
Finally, this research finds that for certain domains, there is
disagreement, but the direction of the disagreement is different
for its constituent traits. For instance, for the family oriented,
children placed more emphasis on a spouse being sincere and
honest than their parents on an in-law, but parents, mainly
mothers, placed more emphasis on traits such as ‘‘loves his/her
family.’’ This contradicts the finding of Apostolou et al. (2014),
where it was found that this trait is valued more in an in-law
than in a spouse. The Apostolou et al. study, however, asked
parents to rate only the family-oriented trait without examining
its constituent traits. This discrepancy in the findings suggests
that in order to better understand disagreement, differences in
the overall domains as well as in their constituent components
must be considered.
The results indicate further that parent–offspring disagree-
ment is not contingent on the sex of the child, that is, the
disagreement between parents and their daughters is not stron-
ger or weaker than the disagreement between parent and their
sons. There is, however, still the possibility that fathers or
mothers disagree more or less with their sons or with their
daughters. In other words, there may be a three-way interaction
between the role, the sex of the parent, and the sex of the child.
The design of this study does not allow testing for this interac-
tion, and future research needs to be pursued to examine if this
is the case.
One of the strengths of this study is that it uses a relatively
large sample to identify the domains of interest in mate and in-
law choice. This, along with the fact that the extracted domains
Table 4. (continued)
Preferences
Father Daughter
pValue d
Father Son
pValue dMean (SD) Means (SD) Mean (SD) Means (SD)
Good father/mother 2.47 (0.87) 2.50 (0.90) .761 .03 2.41 (0.91) 2.26 (1.02) .022 .15
Loves his/her family 2.47 (0.90) 2.44 (0.88) .520 .03 2.37 (0.93) 2.30 (1.06) .287 .07
Wants children 2.30 (0.86) 2.30 (0.91) .955 .00 2.26 (0.87) 2.15 (1.01) .133 .11
Moral 2.29 (0.89) 2.32 (0.95) .684 .03 2.21 (1.01) 2.20 (0.94) .785 .01
Trustful 2.34 (0.86) 2.53 (0.85) .001 .22 2.24 (0.94) 2.31 (0.96) .288 .07
Honest 2.41 (0.87) 2.52 (0.80) .050 .13 2.26 (0.95) 2.26 (0.98) .910 .00
Faithful 2.36 (0.90) 2.46 (0.86) .049 .11 2.31 (0.91) 2.26 (0.97) .397 .05
Good character 2.42 (0.79) 2.53 (0.87) .127 .13 2.29 (0.95) 2.33 (0.95) .606 .04
Healthy 2.39 (0.87) 2.32 (0.90) .294 .08 2.37 (0.89) 2.29 (0.99) .234 .08
Sincere 2.29 (0.82) 2.52 (0.87) <.001 .27 2.27 (0.95) 2.32 (0.98) .449 .03
Emotionally stable 2.40 (0.88) 2.49 (0.80) .080 .10 2.27 (0.92) 2.26 (0.98) .871 .01
Stable 2.25 (0.95) 2.37 (0.92) .050 .13 2.31 (0.90) 2.17 (0.99) .037 .15
Family oriented 2.26 (0.80) 2.20 (0.84) .307 .07 2.18 (0.93) 2.01 (0.92) .010 .18
Good economic prospects 1.99 (0.53) 2.19 (0.54) <.001 .37 1.90 (0.54) 1.78 (0.47) .058 .23
Financially independent 1.97 (0.91) 2.21 (0.93) <.001 .26 1.80 (0.98) 1.68 (1.01) .111 .12
Good provider 1.89 (0.97) 2.07 (0.98) .010 .18 1.56 (0.96) 1.36 (0.88) .009 .21
Good economic prospects 1.91 (0.91) 2.07 (0.94) .013 .17 1.87 (0.86) 1.70 (0.93) .020 .19
Educated 2.01 (0.81) 2.14 (0.89) .049 .15 1.96 (0.95) 1.99 (0.96) .634 .03
Industrious 2.36 (0.74) 2.46 (0.85) .047 .12 2.10 (0.91) 2.04 (0.94) .403 .06
Dynamic 2.08 (0.85) 2.21 (0.83) .050 .15 1.80 (0.90) 1.71 (0.86) .214 .10
Intelligent 2 (0.80) 2.16 (0.86) .009 .19 1.89 (0.92) 1.91 (0.86) .740 .02
Exciting personality 1.79 (0.52) 2.07 (0.54) <.001 .53 1.83 (0.52) 1.90 (0.53) <.001 .13
Cheerful 1.96 (0.82) 2.17 (0.86) .001 .25 1.97 (0.76) 1.95 (0.89) .765 .02
Good sense of humor 1.80 (0.89) 1.99 (0.89) .004 .21 1.65 (0.93) 1.78 (0.91) .085 .14
Romantic 1.63 (0.90) 2.05 (0.83) <.001 .49 1.75 (0.90) 1.91 (0.90) .038 .18
Entertaining 1.65 (0.80) 1.94 (0.86) <.001 .35 1.63 (0.85) 1.94 (0.93) <.001 .35
Exciting 1.63 (0.87) 1.79 (0.88) .032 .18 1.64 (0.93) 1.71 (0.93) .398 .07
Pleasant personality 2.01 (0.82) 2.31 (0.85) <.001 .36 2.03 (0.84) 1.98 (0.89) .372 .05
Easygoing 1.76 (0.89) 1.90 (0.85) .024 .16 1.71 (0.91) 1.8 (0.89) .243 .10
Note. Significant main effects are in boldface.
10 Evolutionary Psychology
overlap considerably with the domains identified by previous
research, provides us with some degree of confidence that these
are the main domains of interest. Furthermore, this study exam-
ined individually all traits identified as important in a prospec-
tive spouse and in an in-law. As a consequence, it is unlikely
that there is a major area of disagreement or agreement over in-
law and mate choice that has not been identified here. Last but
not least, this study is the first one to examine agreement and
disagreement in the constituent traits of the extracted domains
between parents and their actual children.
This work is not without limitations, one being that it is
based on self-report data. Thus, when they have to actually
exercise mate or in-law choice, individuals may exhibit differ-
ent preferences than the ones they indicate here. Another lim-
itation is that the design of Study 2 cannot distinguish between
evolved predisposition effects and age and accumulated expe-
rience effects. In particular, when we compare parents and
children, what changes between them is not only the role
(i.e., parent vs. child) but also the age and life experience. For
example, the evolutionary perspective predicts that different
selection pressures have been exercised on in-law and mate
preferences, with these diverging over good looks, a trait that
is preferred more in a mate than in an in-law. Accordingly, the
differences we observe in this research partially reflect evolved
predisposition effects. Yet, as people age, they may have
learned through life experience that beauty goes away and that
it is not such an important trait in a partner after all. Since
parents are older, they have more life experience, than their
children, which adds to the observed effect. In other domains,
however, the age and experience effect may be to the opposite
direction of the evolved predisposition effect, and it can even
mask it. This limitation can be addressed by employing a
within-participants design, where individuals would rate traits
both in a spouse and in an in-law.
The present research is also limited by the fact that it is
confined to a single culture. The cultural context is likely to
be influential on mate and in-law preferences (Apostolou,
2014b; Buss, 2003), which hints that parent–offspring dis-
agreement is also likely to be affected by the specific cultural
setting. Future research needs to replicate the study in different
cultures, particularly in preindustrial ones, where mate choice
is regulated.
Furthermore, participants in this research were recruited
through a snowball sampling technique, which might be sus-
ceptible to nonrepresentativeness. For instance, participants
were recruited predominantly in cities such as Nicosia. Conse-
quently, traditional rural participants might be underrepre-
sented. Future studies need to account for this limitation by
employing a different sampling technique. In addition, the
socioeconomic status of both parents and children is likely to
have an effect on their in-law and mate preferences, respec-
tively. In this study, socioeconomic variables were not mea-
sured, and future research needs to assess their impact on in-
law and mate preferences. Last but not least, this study did not
take into consideration participants’ sexual orientation. This
can introduce a bias, as people with predominantly homosexual
orientation may not give valid answers to questions about
choosing spouses.
Mate choice is important, one reason being that it introduces
a new member in the family unit, who will play a considerable
role in its survival and reproduction. Given its importance, we
expect that selection forces would have shaped the human mind
to pay considerable attention to mate and in-law choice. This
means that parent–offspring conflict over mating is not just
another area of disagreement between parents and children, but
it is a central area of disagreement. Progress in understanding
this disagreement is likely to help in developing successful
intervention programs that will aim to reduce intrafamily strife.
Such interventions may enable, for instance, individuals to
understand that their parents may react negatively to their mate
choices because they have different preferences to them. It may
also enable parents to understand that their children date indi-
viduals who do not comply with their preferences not as a
reaction against their parents’ wishes, but because they have
different preferences.
Overall, the present research has attempted to provide a
comprehensive account of the domains and their facets over
which there is disagreement between parents and their children
with respect to the latter’s mate choices. Future work needs to
replicate these findings in different samples and in different
cultural settings. Future work needs also to employ these find-
ings in developing interventions, which can improve intrafam-
ily communication and reduce conflict between family
members.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Georgia Kapitsaki, Harald Euler, and
the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback which
contributed to the improvement of this work.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Apostolou, M. (2008a). Parent-offspring conflict over mating: The
case of beauty. Evolutionary Psychology,6, 303–315.
Apostolou, M. (2008b). Parent-offspring conflict over mating: The
case of family background. Evolutionary Psychology,6, 456–468.
Apostolou, M. (2011a). In-law preferences in a post-industrial society:
What parents want in an in-law and how this differs from what
their children want in a spouse. Family Science,2, 186–195.
Apostolou, M. (2011b). Parent-offspring conflict over mating: Testing
the tradeoffs hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology,9, 470–495.
Apostolou, M. (2014a). Parental choice: Exploring in-law preferences
and their contingencies in the Greek-Cypriot culture. Evolutionary
Psychology,12, 54–72.
Apostolou 11
Apostolou, M. (2014b). Sexual selection under parental choice: The
evolution of human mating behavior. Hove, England: Psychology
Press.
Apostolou, M., Philippou, D., Andronikou, Z., Argyridou, K., Kasapi,
K., Kourouklari, I., & Antoniou, A. (2014). Divergence between
in-law and mate preferences: Evolved predispositions or socializa-
tion and experience effects? Personality and Individual Differ-
ences,70, 57–61.
Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human
mating (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Buunk, A. P., & Castro Solano, A. (2010). Conflicting preferences of
parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina.
Journal of Family Psychology,24, 391–399.
Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Dubbs, S. L. (2008). Parent-offspring
conflict in mate preferences. Review of General Psychology,12,
47–62.
Dubbs, S. L., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Parents just don’t understand:
Parent-offspring conflict over mate choice. Evolutionary Psychol-
ogy,8, 586–598.
Dubbs, S. L., Buunk, A. P., & Taniguchi, H. (2013). Parent-offspring
conflict in Japan and parental influence across six cultures. Japa-
nese Psychological Research,55, 241–253.
Ertem, M., & Kocturk, T. (2008). Opinions on early age marriage
customs among Kurdish-speaking women in southeast Turkey.
Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care,34,
147–152.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human
mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences,23, 573–644.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Facial attrac-
tiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry.
Ethology and Sociobiology,15, 73–85.
Hynie, M., Lalonde, R. N., & Lee, N. (2006). Parent-child value
transmission among Chinese immigrants to North America: The
case of traditional mate preferences. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology,12, 230–244.
Lalonde, R. N., Hynie, M., Pannu, M., & Tatla, S. (2004). The role of
culture in interpersonal relationships: Do second generation South
Asian Canadians want a traditional partner? Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology,35, 503–524.
Park, J. H., Dubbs, S. L., & Buunk, A. P. (2009). Parents, offspring
and mate-choice conflicts. In H. Høgh-Oleson, J. Tønnesvang, &
P. Bertelsen (Eds.), Human characteristics—Evolutionary per-
spectives on human mind and kind (pp. 352–365). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Scholars.
Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Meet the
parents: Parent-offspring convergence and divergence in mate pre-
ferences. Personality and Individual Differences,50, 253–258.
Riley, N. E. (1994). Interwoven lives: Parents, marriage, and Guanxi
in China. Journal of Marriage and the Family,56, 791–803.
Schlomer, G. L., Del Giudice, M., & Ellis, B. J. (2011). Parent-
offspring conflict theory: An evolutionary framework for under-
standing conflict within human families. Psychological Review,
118, 496–521.
Shadle, B. L. (2003). Bridewealth and female consent: Marriage dis-
putes in African courts, Gusiland, Kenya. Journal of African His-
tory,44, 241–262.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. (1993). Human facial beauty: Average-
ness, symmetry and parasite resistance. Human Nature,4, 237–269.
Trivers, R. (1974). Parent offspring conflict. American Zoologist,24,
249–264.
van den Berga, P., Fawcetta, T. W., Buunk, A. P., & Weissinga, F. J.
(2013). The evolution of parent–offspring conflict over mate
choice. Evolution and Human Behavior,34, 405–411.
12 Evolutionary Psychology
