ArticlePDF Available

Mate preferences in emerging adulthood and beyond: Age variations in mate preferences and beliefs about change in mate preferences

SAGE Publications Inc
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Few studies have considered how mate preferences may differ for individuals at different ages of emerging adulthood and beyond or considered at the same time other individual difference variables beyond sex and age of participant. This survey study of mate preferences (N = 738) found that participants’ age (from 18 to 40) was associated with lower mate selectivity. This negative association between age and mate selectivity was greater for men than for women. Age continued to be associated with mate selectivity controlling for shyness and perception of available partners—and both of these variables were uniquely associated with mate selectivity (negatively and positively, respectively). This study also examined participants’ beliefs about how the importance of various traits in a partner had changed over time. Overall, the participants perceived no change or a slight increase in their preferences over time, although the perceived change depended on the particular trait domain, sex of the participant, and the other individual difference variables.
This content is subject to copyright.
Article
Mate preferences in
emerging adulthood and
beyond: Age variations
in mate preferences
and beliefs about change
in mate preferences
Susan Sprecher
1
, Alexis Econie
2
, and Stanislav Treger
3
Abstract
Few studies have considered how mate preferences may differ for individuals at different
ages of emerging adulthood and beyond or considered at the same time other individual
difference variables beyond sex and age of participant. This survey study of mate pre-
ferences (N¼738) found that participants’ age (from 18 to 40) was associated with
lower mate selectivity. This negative association between age and mate selectivity was
greater for men than for women. Age continued to be associated with mate selectivity
controlling for shyness and perception of available partners—and both of these variables
were uniquely associated with mate selectivity (negatively and positively, respectively).
This study also examined participants’ beliefs about how the importance of various traits in
a partner had changed over time. Overall, the participants perceived no change or a slight
increase in their preferences over time, although the perceived change depended on the
particular trait domain, sex of the participant, and the other individual difference variables.
Keywords
Emerging adulthood, gender differences, mate preferences, mate selection, shyness
1
Illinois State University, USA
2
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
3
Syracuse University, USA
Corresponding author:
Susan Sprecher, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Illinois State University, Schroeder Hall, Normal, IL
61790, USA.
Email: sprecher@ilstu.edu
Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships
1–20
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0265407518816880
journals.sagepub.com/home/spr
J S P R
Single adults who desire to begin a new relationship generally know what traits they
want in a partner. Such a “wish list” may be particularly salient today as many singles
seek partners at Internet dating sites and are asked to list their preferences for a match.
Social scientists have been studying the criteria people desire in a partner, though, long
before the existence of Internet dating. In the primary method used to assess mate
preferences—the mate selection paradigm—participants are asked to rate the importance
of several characteristics in a mate. Much of this research has focused on sex differences
(e.g., Buss, 1989; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Men and women agree that intrinsic charac-
teristics such as kindness and pleasing personality are most desired. However, men
generally prefer physical attractiveness more and resources (e.g., financial security) less
in a partner than do women (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1995;
Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994). These sex differences have been explained by
principles from evolutionary theory (i.e., sex differences in risks in mating) as well as by
social factors (e.g., socialization and opportunity differences) (e.g., Sprecher et al.,
1994). For example, according to evolutionary theory, because women endure pregnancy
followed by gestation, they are more selective to ensure mating with a viable partner with
traits such as social status and resources that facilitate offspring’s survival.
Research on mate preferences has been conducted primarily with young adults.
However, the period of partner-seeking persists much beyond emerging adulthood (the
ages 18–25; Arnett, 2000). The main purpose of this study was to investigate how mate
preferences vary by age, with a sample of single (and unpartnered) adults that included
both college-age participants and adults in later ages of emerging adulthood and beyond
(those in their 30s). In considering how age is associated with mate preferences, we
control for two variables that may be confounded with being single beyond emerging
adulthood—shyness (a social deficiency variable) and perception of partner availability
1
(a contextual variable). As a second purpose of the study, we examine participants’
beliefs about how the importance of traits in a potential partner has changed over time,
which provide additional data on the temporal course of mate preferences.
Age and mate preferences
Only a few studies have considered how mate preferences vary with age. In one such
study, Bleske-Rechek, VandenHeuvel, and Vander Wyst (2009, study 2) focused on how
mate preferences differed based on age of participants, from age 18 to 25. Although they
hypothesized that age would be associated with having stronger preferences for personal
(e.g., emotional stability) and social success characteristics (e.g., ambition), but less
desire for physical attractiveness, they found generally no associations between age and
mate preferences. In a second cross-sectional study, conducted with a diverse sample of
online participants (ages ranged from 18 to 26), more associations were found between
age and mate preferences (Bleske-Rechek et al., study 3). The older participants (both
men and women) emphasized physical attractiveness less than did the younger partici-
pants. Among women, age was correlated positively with the importance expressed for
certain intrinsic personality characteristics (emotional stability, intelligence). Further-
more, among men, ambition was found to be more important to the older participants
than to the younger participants.
2Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
Schwarz and Hassebrauck (2012) found few age differences in mate preferences in a
large sample of patrons (ages 18–65) of a German dating website. An exception was that
age was associated with scores on the composite “creative and domestic,” with the older
participants scoring higher. The researchers also found that women’s greater selectivity
on most of the trait composites relative to men were generally consistent across the age-
groups. Other cross-sectional analyses of mate preferences also have found few overall
age differences in mate preferences and generally consistent sex differences in mate
preferences regardless of age (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Spre-
cher et al., 1994). In a study that used a “revealed preferences method” (Brumbaugh &
Wood, 2013), people of different ages (and from many areas of the world) were asked to
react to photographs of the opposite sex who had been previously coded by the
researchers as displaying various characteristics. The researchers concluded that women
(and men to a lesser degree) showed a “communal shift” with age in their preferences for
the photographs. For example, with increasing age, the U.S. women preferred photo-
graphs of men who looked sensitive, intelligent, and who were smiling. The participants
also provided self-reported preferences for various traits in a partner, however, and the
U.S. women and men showed very little variation in these preferences based on age (see
also Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009).
Longitudinal research also shows how mate preferences change over time.
Bleske-Rechek and Ryan (2015) surveyed first- and second-year college students,
and then again 3 years later. Moderate correspondence was found between ratings of
mate preferences between the two waves. Women placed less emphasis on physical
attractiveness and more emphasis on ambition over the 3 years, although no change
was found in their ratings of intrinsic characteristics. Furthermore, men’s ratings did
not generally change for any of the traits. In a 3-year longitudinal study of 27 newly
married couples, Shackelford, Schmitt, and Buss (2005) found the participants’
ratings of the importance of pleasant personality characteristics increased. In addi-
tion, for men, the importance of physical attractiveness actually increased between
the two waves, contrary to their prediction.
Although the existing literature suggests few differences in mate preferences with age
or over time, the research is limited in various ways. First, only a few studies used
samples that included adults beyond college age. Second, past mate selection studies that
considered age differences have generally not focused exclusively on unpartnered
individuals for whom expressions of mate preferences are most relevant and are unlikely
to be confounded with factors such as the traits of an existing partner. Third, past
research has not simultaneously considered other factors that may be associated with
remaining single over time and that could be confounded with age in the prediction of
mate preferences. We next discuss two such variables.
Other individual difference variables
Because it is more normative to be single and unpartnered in early emerging adulthood
than during the period beyond emerging adulthood (i.e., the 30s), singles in their 30s may
differ from singles who are college-age in ways beyond age per se, and these ways may
account for some of the age differences found in mate preferences during singlehood. In
Sprecher et al. 3
particular, older singles may differ from college-age singles in social deficiencies and
partner markets, and both of these factors are likely to be associated with mate pre-
ferences. Variables representing each factor should be controlled for in examining the
associations of age with mate preferences for a more complete understanding of how age
is associated with mate preferences.
We consider shyness as a social deficiency variable. Shyness has been defined as a
feeling of inhibition, anxiety, and awkwardness around other people (e.g., Cheek &
Buss, 1981). Although other social deficiency variables could be considered, including
communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1984), social anxiety (Leary, 1983), and
dating anxiety (Allen, Bourhis, Emmers-Sommer, & Sahlstein, 1998), research has
shown strong associations between shyness and other social deficiency variables (e.g.,
Anderson & Harvey, 1988; McCroskey & Richmond, 1982), particularly social anxiety
(Brook & Willoughby, 2017). Therefore, any conclusions about shyness are likely to
generalize to social anxiety, and vice versa. As evidence for inclusion of this variable as a
control, shyness (social anxiety) has been linked to the decreased likelihood of marriage
(Schneier et al., 1994; as reported in Wenzel & Emerson, 2009).
Indirect evidence suggests that romantic preferences may vary with shyness (social
anxiety). In a study that focused on social anxiety in a romantic situation, Wenzel and
Emerson (2009) selected individuals who were either exceptionally high or exception-
ally low on social anxiety and presented them with photographs and descriptions of
hypothetical opposite sex individuals who varied in level of physical attractiveness and
social status. The participants had a more positive reaction to desirable targets than to
less desirable targets regardless of their level of social anxiety. The socially anxious
participants, however, reported that they would be less likely to initiate relationships
with physically attractive targets and more likely to initiate relationships with physically
unattractive targets, relative to non-anxious participants. Socially anxious participants
also believed that physically attractive people would be less likely to approach them.
These results suggest that shy people may be less demanding in their mate preferences,
although our study may be the first to test this directly.
For a contextual variable, we consider participants’ perception of partner availability.
Individuals are likely to be aware of their “field of eligibles” (Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962)
and the likelihood that they can obtain a compatible partner in their mate searching
efforts (Bredow, 2015). We speculate that those who have a more positive attitude about
finding a compatible partner will have higher standards for a mate than will those who
have a more pessimistic attitude (Sprecher & Regan, 2002). The latter group may believe
they should settle for less in a partner. In support of this variable as a control, evidence
indicates that older singles are aware that their pool of eligibles is diminishing (Fales
et al., 2016; Sharp & Ganong, 2011).
Beliefs about change in mate preferences
We also examined whether people believe that their mate preferences have changed over
time, which has mostly been unexplored. In an exception, Bleske-Rechek et al. (2009,
study 1) asked a small sample of college students open-ended questions about their
beliefs about how others’ partner preferences change as they develop from incoming
4Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
freshman to graduating seniors. Approximately one-half of the participants assumed that
personality traits become more important but that physical attractiveness decreases in
importance over time.
No research, however, has examined people’s beliefs about how their own mate
preferences have changed over time. Such beliefs are important to study for a number of
reasons. First, such beliefs can serve as a proxy for actual change in mate preferences,
which is more difficult to study. That is, people should have some insight into how their
mate preferences have changed, and therefore, such retrospective data can provide
additional evidence (to complement cross-sectional and longitudinal designs) about
change in mate preferences with age or over time. Second, beliefs about changes in mate
preferences are a distinct phenomenon (different from current mate preferences) that can
be an important influence guiding mating decisions and behaviors. For example, if
people believe that their emphasis on a particular trait (e.g., physical appearance) has
decreased over time, this likely will affect the type of partner they would seek relative to
their past choice of partners. Furthermore, assessment of beliefs about change in mate
preferences allows for a test of the robustness of the sex differences found in mate
preferences.
Summary of hypotheses and research questions
In sum, this study examines mate preferences with a diverse sample of unpartnered
individuals, including college-age adults in addition to those in later emerging adult-
hood and beyond. We explore age variation in mate preferences by first examining the
bivariate association of age with a composite measure representing overall mate
selectivity. Then, we consider how these associations differ based on sex of participant
and may change once shyness and perception of partner availability are considered. We
also examine whether the associations between age and mate preferences depend on
the type of trait.
Competing hypotheses emerge in the consideration of how overall mate selectivity
varies with age. Furthermore, the specific variation found may depend on the age-groups
compared. On the one hand, the youngest single adults (18–21) may be especially
selective because they have ample time and opportunities to find a partner. People of
college age also are more likely than those who are older to have unrealistic views of
marriage (Cobb, Larson, & Watson, 2003), which may also be associated with expecting
a partner to have many desirable traits. Alternatively, older single adults (e.g., those in
their 30s) may be particularly selective, and this could be the reason they are currently
unpartnered (Bredow, 2015; Lewis & Moon, 1997). Therefore, we pose our first research
question (RQ1): What is the association of age with overall mate selectivity?
Next, we consider how the association between age and mate preferences may depend
on the type of trait. We follow the lead of prior researchers (Bleske-Rechek, Vanden-
Heuvel, & Vander Wyst, 2009), who have hypothesized that with increasing age,
intrinsic or communal characteristics become more important (H1) and physical
appearance becomes less important (H2). We make these predictions tentatively, how-
ever, as the evidence for them is mixed at best (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2009; Wood &
Sprecher et al. 5
Brumbaugh, 2009). We also explore, although do not make predictions about, how age is
associated with the other specific types of traits (e.g., resources/success; RQ2).
We also consider whether sex differences in mate preferences (e.g., men empha-
sizing physical attractiveness more than women and women emphasizing resources
and status more than men) will be consistent across the age-groups represented in our
sample (RQ3). We speculate that sex differences (and similarities) in mate preferences
will be robust and found in each age-group represented in our sample, from ages 18 to
40 (H3), as would be predicted by evolutionary theory for men and women who are still
of reproductive age. Furthermore, we consider whether age variation in mate pre-
ferences is found controlling for shyness and the perception of the availability of
partners (RQ4). As noted earlier, we expect that mate selectivity will be negatively
associated with shyness (H4) and positively associated with the perception of having
access to desirable partners (H5).
In our consideration of the participants’ beliefs about change in mate preferences, we
examine a parallel set of issues. First, we will establish the degree to which people
believe that their mate preferences have changed “over the past 2–3 years”
2
and the
direction of that change (RQ5). Likely, any degree and direction of perceived change
will depend on the type of trait (e.g., intrinsic attributes vs. physical appearance). Parallel
to our predictions in the cross-sectional analyses, we hypothesize that participants will
believe that they value physical appearance in a partner less now than they did previously
(H6), but will believe that they value intrinsic characteristics (personality) more now
than before (H7). We explore people’s beliefs about changes in the other traits (RQ6).
We also expect to find sex differences in beliefs about changes in mate preferences
that parallel sex differences in current mate preferences, with women to a greater
degree than men believing that physical appearance has become less important to them
over time (H8), but that resources/success has become more important (H9). Fur-
thermore, we explore sex differences in beliefs about change for the other specific
traits (RQ7). To complete our parallel analyses to the mate preferences, we also
explore age variation in perceived change in mate preferences (RQ8) and how shyness
and the perception of partner availability are associated with beliefs about change in
one’s mate preferences (RQ9).
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 738 single and romantically unattached individuals (62.2%
women) after deletions were made because of issues including a large portion of
incomplete survey data.
3
The participants were obtained from a Midwest U.S. public
university and through online forums. The mean age of the sample was 24.01 (SD ¼
5.27); 55%of the sample was above the age of 21 (i.e., above the age range of typical
college students). For race/ethnicity, 76%reported White, 10.9%reported Black, 7.1%
reported Hispanic/Latino, 5.9%reported Asian, and a few participants indicated “other”
or did not respond.
6Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
Procedure
A paper survey and an identical online survey were created. The paper survey
(completed by 23%of the sample) was distributed in several social science classes
at the Midwest University. Students were told to complete the survey only if they
were currently single and unattached. (Students who were in a relationship were
given an alternative survey to complete.) Participants were given extra credit for
completing a survey but were also given the option for a non-research activity for
earning credit.
A link to an online version of the survey (completed by 77%of the sample) was
distributed to several groups of individuals. First, in some classes at the Midwest Uni-
versity, students were given the option to complete the online survey outside of class for
extra credit (*24%of the online participants). Second, a snowball sample was obtained
by research teams given the option to post the survey on social media (*38%of the
online participants). Third, data were collected from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(*29%of the online participants); these participants were paid US$1 for completion of
the survey. Finally, a small number of participants were obtained when the survey was
posted for a brief time at the Science of Relationship site (*9%of the online partici-
pants). The percentage from each of these sources is an estimate because not all parti-
cipants identified the way they reached the online link to the survey. In the total sample,
approximately 65%identified themselves as students.
Measures
Preferences in a partner. We assessed mate preferences by asking the participants how
much they wanted a potential romantic partner to be above average on each of 16 traits,
with 4 response options presented: (1) average on this characteristic would be fine for
me; (2) prefer someone slightly above average on this characteristic; (3) prefer someone
somewhat above average on this characteristic; and (4) prefer someone very above
average on this characteristic; a person needs to “stand out” on this characteristic.
4
The
list included several traits typically found in prior mate selection studies (e.g., Hatfield &
Sprecher, 1995; Sprecher & Regan, 2002), such as physical attractiveness, financial
security, and a pleasing personality. The list also included 2 items that assessed the
importance of having a partner who is approved of by and connected with one’s social
network. (The full list of traits is available in the Supplementary File available from the
first author.)
We created an index of total selectivity, represented by the mean to the items.
5
A
higher score indicated higher standards (a¼.85). Second, we created composite scores
for related items, with decisions of which items to group based on factor analysis results,
intercorrelations among items (and Cronbach’s as), and groupings from prior mate
selection research (e.g., Regan, 1998; Sprecher & Regan, 2002). A physical appearance
composite was created from the items physically attractive, physically fit, and nice body
(a¼.84), A resources/success composite was created from the items financial security,
has a good job, ambitious, good earning potential, and education (a¼.83). An intrinsic
characteristics composite was created from the items pleasing disposition and
Sprecher et al. 7
personality, kind and considerate, and friendly and outgoing (a¼.68). A social network
composite was created from the items approved of by my close social network and wants
to spend time with my close network (r¼.74, p< .001). Items on similarity and
intelligence—although included in the overall selectivity composite—were not included
in any of the domain composites because they were not conceptually or empirically
associated with any of the major groups.
Beliefs about change in the importance of the traits. Participants were also asked to
respond to each trait a second time, indicating their beliefs of how their preference
for each trait had changed “over the past 2–3 years.” The response options were as
follows: (1) this characteristic in a partner has become less important to me over the
past 2–3 years; (2) the importance of this characteristic in a partner has not changed
for me over the past 2–3 years; and (3) this characteristic in a partner has become
more important to me over the past 2–3 years. A composite score was represented
by the mean of the items. The higher the score, the more that the participants
believed that their mate selectivity had increased or at least stayed the same (rather
than decreased) over the prior 2–3 years.
In addition, we combined the items into trait domains identical to the domains for
selectivity in current mate preferences. Internal consistency indices for the four aggre-
gated domains were physical appearance (a¼.76), resources/success (a¼.75),
intrinsic characteristics (a¼.55), and social network (a¼.69).
Age and other demographic variables. Age was measured by an open-ended question. Sex
and the other demographic variables (e.g., race) were measured by direct single items,
with response options provided.
Measures of the control variables. Shyness was measured by 6 items from the revised
Cheek and Buss (1981) Shyness scale. Example items were “I feel tense when I’m with
people I don’t know well” and “I am socially somewhat awkward.” Participants
responded to each item on a 1 (does not describe me)to7(describes me completely)
response scale (a¼.85).
To measure perceptions of partner availability, we asked the participants to respond to
items that asked about the availability of desirable partners across three contexts (online
dating website, social network, daily activities). An example item was “How likely do
you believe it would be that you would meet a dating partner with the characteristics that
you desire in _____?” (Spielmann et al. [2013, study 6] asked two similar items in regard
to the context of online dating.) Participants responded to each item on a 1 (very unlikely
or not at all easy)to7(very likely or very easy) response scale. We aggregated these
items to form a total score of positive attitudes about the availability of desirable
partners (a¼.82).
8Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
Results
Current mate preferences
Preliminary analyses. The mean to the composite index of selectivity, which represented
how overall selective the participants were in their current mate preferences, was 2.46
(SD ¼.55). This mean indicates that the participants generally desired a partner who was
between slightly and somewhat above average on the traits, overall. Of the specific trait
domains, participants scored highest on intrinsic characteristics and lowest on physical
appearance (see Table 1). A table of descriptive statistics for the individual items is
available in the Supplementary File.
Table 1 also presents the results from independent-samples t-tests, which showed that
women scored significantly higher than men on the overall composite (i.e., women were
more selective overall) and more specifically on the composites intrinsic characteristics,
social network, and resources/success. Men scored significantly higher than women on
the composite for physical appearance.
Age and overall mate selectivity. The bivariate association of age (18–40) with the
composite of overall selectivity was r¼.31, p< .001, indicating that our older par-
ticipants were less selective overall than were our younger participants (RQ1). To further
examine the associations between age and overall mate selectivity, we divided our
sample into four age-groups: 18–21 (the age of most college students; n¼334), 22–25
(mostly post-college age; n¼195), 26–30 (end of emerging adulthood; n¼99), and 31–
40 (past emerging adulthood; n¼110). A 4 (age-group) 2 (sex) analysis of variance
(ANOVA)
6
on the overall composite of selectivity yielded main effects of age–group,
F(3, 728) ¼26.54, p< .0001; Z
2
¼.10, and of sex, F(1, 728) ¼16.16, p¼.0001; Z
2
¼
.02, with the differences in the expected direction (higher mate selectivity for younger
age-groups and for women). An Age-Group Sex Interaction, however, qualified these
effects, F(3, 728) ¼3.24, p¼.0218; Z
2
¼.013. As shown in Figure 1, the overall
selectivity score was lower with each age-group; however, the decrease was more
pronounced for men than for women. Between-sex comparisons for each age-group
Table 1. Descriptive results for the composite of overall selectivity and for each trait domain, for
current mate preferences.
Composite
Total sample Men Women
tdMean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Overall selectivity composite 2.46 (0.55) 2.32 (0.58) 2.54 (0.52) 5.08 .40
Intrinsic characteristics composite 2.96 (0.73) 2.80 (0.76) 3.07 (0.68) 4.92 .37
Social network composite 2.49 (0.98) 2.13 (0.95) 2.72 (0.94) 8.26 .62
Resources/success composite 2.37 (0.76) 2.06 (0.72) 2.56 (0.71) 9.09 .71
Physical appearance composite 2.12 (0.81) 2.37 (0.85) 1.97 (0.75) 6.44 .50
Note. The responses to the ratings of trait importance were as follows: (1) prefer average; (2) prefer slightly
above average; (3) prefer somewhat above average; and (4) prefer very above average. d¼Cohen’s d(effect
measure). All ps < .001.
Sprecher et al. 9
yielded two differences: Women in the age-groups 26–30 and 31–40 were more selective
than were men in these age-groups (ds and ps¼.55, .007 and .65, .001, respectively).
Age and the importance of specific traits. We speculated that the association of age with
mate selection may depend on the particular trait. More specifically, we hypothesized
that intrinsic characteristics (e.g., personality) would be more important for our older
than our younger participants (H1), whereas physical appearance would be more
important for our younger participants (H2). The first column of Table 2 presents the
correlations of age with each trait domain. Contrary to H1, age was negatively associated
with the importance of intrinsic characteristics. In support of H2, age was negatively
correlated with the importance of physical appearance. The negative association between
age and the importance of physical appearance, however, was not unique to this trait. It
was found that age was negatively associated with the importance ratings for each of the
trait domains (RQ2). The particular trait domain that was most negatively associated
with age, for both men and women, was the social network composite.
Sex differences in specific traits across age-groups. As noted earlier, we found sex dif-
ferences in mate preferences consistent with prior research. To examine whether sex
differences are consistent across age-groups (RQ3), we conducted a 4 (age-group: 18–21,
22–25, 26–30, and over 30) 2 (sex) ANOVA for each domain trait. For all but one trait
domain, the Age-Group Sex interaction was not significant, indicating that the sex
differences (and similarities) found in mate preferences were consistent across the age-
groups, in support of H3. The exception was a significant Age-Group Sex interaction for
the intrinsic characteristics composite, F(3, 729) ¼3.54, p¼.014; Z
2
¼.014. Follow-up
analyses with Sidak corrections indicated no significant sex differences in scores on the
2.63 2.60 2.652.46 2.43 2.472.23 2.09 2.372.14 2.00 2.33
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Total Men Women
18-21 22-25 26-30 31-40
Figure 1. Overall selectivity in current mate preferences across four age-groups for total sample
and men versus women. The values inside the bars represent the mean for each group. Error bars
represent the standard error of the mean. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the age-group
18–21 was more selective than the other groups, and the age-group 22–30 was more selective
than was the age-group 31–40.
10 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
intrinsic characteristics composite for all age-groups except 31–40, in which women
scored significantly higher than did men (t¼3.57, p¼.01, d¼.27).
Associations of age with mate preferences controlling for shyness and perceived partner
availability. In a final analysis conducted with current mate preferences, we examined
whether the negative association between age and overall mate selectivity is still found,
controlling for shyness and the perception of the market of partners (RQ4).
7
We per-
formed separate regressions for men and women because we were interested in whether
these effects differed by sex. As shown in Table 3, for men, age was a negative predictor
of the overall selectivity composite and for each of the trait domains, controlling for
shyness and the perception of partner availability. For women, age was a unique sig-
nificant predictor of the overall selectivity composite and for the specific composites,
social network and physical appearance. However, for women, age was not a unique
predictor of the intrinsic characteristics composite or the resources/success composite.
Thus, for women, the importance ratings of intrinsic characteristics (e.g., personality)
and resources/success were not associated with age, when controlling for shyness and
perceptions of the partner market.
We were also interested in the associations of shyness and perception of available
partners with mate preferences. In the regressions (Table 3), shyness was generally not a
unique predictor of mate preferences for men, with the exception of being a negative
predictor of the importance of physical appearance. On the other hand, shyness was a
negative predictor of overall selectivity and of all of the specific domain traits for
women. That is, in support of H4, shy women were less demanding in their mate pre-
ferences than were less shy women. Supporting H5, perceived partner availability was a
positive predictor of overall mate selectivity for both men and women.
Beliefs about changes in mate preferences
Overall beliefs. Table 4 provides the descriptive results for the participants’ beliefs
about how their mate preferences have changed (“over the past 2–3 years”), overall
and for each trait domain (descriptive results for individual items are available in the
Supplementary File). The mean for the overall composite score of perceived change was
Table 2. Bivariate correlations of age with the composite of overall selectivity and for each trait
domain, total sample, and for men and women separately.
Composite Total sample Men Women
Composite scores
Overall selectivity composite .31** .40** .19**
Intrinsic characteristics composite .26** .35** .12*
Social network composite .38** .42** .27**
Resources/success composite .26** .30** .13*
Physical appearance composite .11* .21** .14*
Note. The possible responses to the rating of trait importance were as follows: (1) prefer average; (2) prefer
slightly above average; (3) prefer somewhat above average; and (4) prefer very above average.
*p< .01; **p< .001.
Sprecher et al. 11
2.21 (SD ¼0.27), which indicates that participants believed that the traits overall had
become slightly more important to them over time (RQ5). A one-sample t-test indicated that
this mean was significantly above the midpoint of 2, which was the response no change
(t¼20.74, p< .001). It should be noted that these analyses present a different picture
than the cross-sectional analyses of how age was associated with mate preferences.
8
We expected to find variation in the degree to which the traits were perceived to
change over time (RQ6), and indeed the means in Table 4 show that although most of the
composite scores were higher than the midpoint, the composite score for physical
appearance was below the midpoint in the direction of a perceived decrease in impor-
tance (H6). The trait domains that were perceived to have increased the most in
importance were intrinsic characteristics (H7) and resources/success.
Table 3. Regression analyses for the associations of age and control variables with mate
preferences.
Outcome variable Predictor variables
b
Men Women
Overall selectivity composite Age .32*** .13*
Shyness .07 .18***
Partner availability .22** .11*
F24.42*** 12.62***
R
2
.22 .08
Intrinsic characteristics composite Age .29*** .07
Shyness .06 .17**
Partner availability .17* .09
F17.34*** 8.51***
R
2
.17 .06
Social network composite Age .37*** .23***
Shyness .00 .11*
Partner availability .20** .17**
F26.07*** 21.41***
R
2
.23 .14
Resources/success composite Age .23*** .09
Shyness .04 .14**
Partner availability .17* .04
F11.84*** 5.07**
R
2
.12 .04
Physical appearance composite Age .13* .11*
Shyness .17** .14**
Partner availability .17* .06
F12.18*** 6.76***
R
2
.12 .05
Note. Negative and significant bs indicated that people who scored higher on the predictor variable scored
lower on the composite, indicating lesser importance of the trait domain. Positive and significant bs indicated
that the predictor variable lead to greater importance of the trait domain.
*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.
12 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
Sex differences in beliefs about changes. Table 4 also presents the results for a comparison
between men and women in their beliefs about changes in mate preferences. Only for
women was the composite score for physical appearance below the midpoint in the
direction of a decrease (men perceived no change); therefore, H8 was supported. Fur-
thermore, in support of H9, women believed to a greater degree than men that resources/
success had become more important to them. Women also had a higher score than men
on the overall composite (showing greater perceived increases or lesser decreases in
selectivity over time) and were also significantly higher on the social network composite
and the intrinsic characteristics composite (RQ7).
The association of age with beliefs about change. A bivariate correlational analysis indicated
that age was negatively associated with the composite score of perceived change
(r¼.36, p< .001), indicating that with increasing age, the participants perceived lesser
increases (or more decreases) in their mate preferences over the prior 2–3 years (RQ8).
Age was not associated, however, with beliefs about change in physical attractiveness
and in intrinsic characteristics for women (correlational results are available in the
Supplementary File).
To further examine how age was associated with perceived change in mate pre-
ferences, and whether there were differences between men and women, we conducted a 2
(sex) 4 (age-group: 18–21, 22–25, 26–30, and over 30) ANOVA
9
for the overall mate
selectivity composite and for each trait composite. Only the main effects of sex, F(1,
697) ¼24.48, p< .0001; Z
2
¼.034, and age-group, F(3, 697) ¼29.27, p< .0001; Z
2
¼
.011, emerged (see Figure 2). Post hoc comparisons indicated that the age-group 18–21
was more selective than the other groups, and the age-group 22–30 was more selective
than was the age-group 31–40. Similar results (significant main effects for age-group and
sex, and no significant Age-Group Sex interaction) were found for each train domain,
with the exception that there was a significant Age-Group Sex interaction for the
intrinsic characteristics composite (see table in the Supplementary File).
Finally, we ran regression analyses to examine whether age continued to be associated
with perceived changes in mate preferences controlling for shyness and perceived
Table 4. Descriptive results for overall composite and trait domains for perceived change in mate
preferences.
Composite
Total sample Men Women
tdMean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Overall change composite 2.21 (0.27) 2.12 (0.26) 2.26 (0.26) 6.83*** .54
Intrinsic characteristics composite 2.37 (0.39) 2.32 (0.39) 2.39 (0.38) 2.43* .18
Social network composite 2.16 (0.58) 2.02 (0.54) 2.25 (0.58) 5.33*** .41
Resources/success composite 2.34 (0.46) 2.12 (0.44) 2.47 (0.42) 10.42*** .81
Physical appearance composite 1.85 (0.52) 1.96 (0.49) 1.78 (0.52) 4.51*** .36
Note. The possible responses to the rating of change were as follows: (1) became less important; (2) no change;
and (3) became more important.
*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.
Sprecher et al. 13
market availability (RQ9). Age continued to be a unique negative predictor of beliefs
about change, overall and for each trait domain, for men. For women, age was a
unique negative predictor of beliefs about change as reflected in the overall com-
posite, and for two domain composites, social network and resources/success. For
both sexes, shyness and the perception of available partners were not significant
predictors of beliefs about change in mate preferences, with the exception that, for
men, shyness was a negative predictor of beliefs about change in the importance of
integrating one’s partner into one’s social network and a positive predictor of beliefs
about change in the importance of physical appearance. (A table of regression
results is available in the Supplementary File.)
Discussion
Past inquiries into the characteristics people desire in a partner have often focused on
college-age participants, regardless of their relationship status and on limited predictors
(e.g., sex). Our investigation, on the other hand, was conducted with a large sample of
romantically unattached adults between the ages of 18 and 40. We examined not only
participants’ current mate preferences but also their beliefs about how their mate pre-
ferences had changed over time, and looked at age, sex, and other factors as predictors of
both current mate preferences and beliefs about change in mate preferences.
Associations of age with current mate preferences
Age was found to be negatively associated with overall mate preferences. This negative
association may occur for a variety of reasons. Borrowing the distinction of maximizing
versus satisficing as choice strategies in dating (e.g., Yang & Chiou, 2010), younger
2.30 2.28 2.312.19 2.11 2.242.10 2.04 2.172.04 2.00 2.11
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Total Men Women
18-21 22-25 26-30 31-40
Figure 2. Beliefs about overall change in mate preferences across four age-groups for total sample
and men versus women. The values inside the bars represent the mean for each group. Error bars
represent the standard error of the mean. All differences in the total means for each age-group are
statistically significant at p.001, except the differences between 26–30 and 22–25 age-groups;
and between 26–30 and 31–40 age-groups.
14 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
people may be maximizing in their mate-finding strategies, looking for the best possible
options. With age, people may adapt a more satisficing strategy, which is to accept others
who pass a threshold of acceptability. Relatedly, the potential partner pool is large for
younger adults, which may allow them to be selective and maximize in their mate
choices. With increasing age beyond emerging adulthood, however, people generally
have shrinking partner markets. In fact, we found that age was negatively associated with
the perception of partner availability.
Interestingly, although we found that overall mate selectivity was negatively asso-
ciated with age for both sexes, the negative association was more pronounced for men
than for women. This finding echoes prior evolutionary work on mate selection (e.g.,
Buss, 1989). Factors beyond evolution may also play a role in this finding. Women tend
to become more invested in their relationship than do men (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew,
1998). Thus, maintaining selectivity can bolster their chance of obtaining a relationship
that maximizes benefits and reduces costs.
We speculated that the associations of age with the importance of partner preferences
would depend somewhat on the type of trait. For example, we expected that the
importance of physical attractiveness in a partner would be negatively associated with
age (H6), whereas the importance of intrinsic characteristics would be positively asso-
ciated with age (H7). Our results, however, showed that age was negatively associated
with the importance of all of the trait domains, including the intrinsic characteristics
composite. Thus, the degree that people beyond young adulthood are more realistic
(satisficing) in their mate preferences extends to all traits. The social network composite
(i.e., the importance of integrating one’s partner into one’s network) was the trait domain
with the largest negative association with age.
Our older participants, relative to our younger participants, scored higher on shyness
and perceived their dating markets to be less desirable.
7
When we controlled for shyness
and perception of available partners, age generally continued to have a negative asso-
ciation with overall mate selectivity. Furthermore, both control variables contributed
additional unique variance in mate standards. More specifically, shyness was associated
negatively with current mate preferences. Past research has suggested that shyness (or
the related construct, social anxiety) is associated with difficulty in developing rela-
tionships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Wenzel & Emerson, 2009). Therefore, shy
people, who are likely aware of their lower mate value and the difficulty they have
forging new relationships, may adapt by lowering their standards for a partner.
The other control variable, the perception of available partners, was uniquely and
positively associated with mate selectivity. The more that people believed they could
find a desirable partner (across a variety of settings), the greater their mate selectivity
(controlling for the other variables including age and shyness). Perhaps it is a challenge
to find a compatible partner when one has high mate standards. This idea, however,
assumes that mate standards affect attitudes about finding a desirable partner, but in line
with our placement of the perception of available partners as a predictor variable, it is
more likely that mate standards result from beliefs about how easy it is to find a partner
than the reverse. Individuals with higher mate standards may be more actively seeking a
suitable partner in various everyday settings than those with lower mate standards.
Results similar to ours were found by Bredow, Huston, and Glenn (2011) who reported
Sprecher et al. 15
that people who had more stringent mate standards were more confident about finding a
partner than those who were less stringent.
Not surprisingly, our study replicated the sex differences in mate preferences found in
prior research. Women were more selective overall and specifically more selective than
men for resources/success traits and other factors associated with the maintenance of
relationships (pleasant personality). Men were more selective than women for physical
appearance, also in line with our predictions. In addition, this study showed that people
(and women especially) believe that it is important to have a partner connected to one’s
network. Our inclusion of social network items is particularly timely with the current
pertinence of social network functions of dating technologies, such as Tinder.
We were also particularly interested in whether these sex differences would replicate
across the different age-groups represented in our study. We found this to be the case
with one exception. Sex differences in intrinsic characteristics (with women scoring
higher) were found among our older participants (31 through 40) but not among our
younger participants. This may reflect the notion that older men who are still single
become less selective overall.
Beliefs about changes in mate preferences
We also examined people’s beliefs about changes in their mate preferences and found
that there was a belief of a slight increase in one’s own overall mate selectivity. Although
the time frame asked about (past 2–3 years) in the retrospective analyses was less than
the range of ages represented by our cross-sectional analysis, a comparison of the two
types of analyses suggests that people may not be aware of the changes that occur in their
own mate preferences. Mate selectivity may decrease with age, but people may not be
aware that they have become less selective over time.
Despite our participants’ beliefs that their overall mate selectivity had increased over
time, analyses conducted with the distinct trait domains indicated that participants
believed that they valued physical appearance to a lesser degree currently than they did
2–3 years earlier, consistent with our predictions and findings from Bleske-Rechek et al.
(2009, study 1) on beliefs about changes for others. Further consistent with their find-
ings, the traits that our participants believed had increased the most in importance were
those associated with relationship success (e.g., intrinsic characteristics) and resources/
success. It may be that more mature singles are seeking someone compatible for long-
term partnership, making the importance of intrinsic characteristics more poignant,
whereas younger singles may still be exploring what it means to be in a relationship,
perhaps basing their partnership choices on more superficial characteristics.
The bivariate association of age with the overall composite of perceived change was
negative, which indicates that with increasing age, participants perceived less increase
(or more decrease/no change) in their preferences. This association is consistent with the
cross-sectional analyses conducted with current mate preferences. That is, our older
participants, to a greater degree than our younger participants, believed that these traits
had decreased in importance (or were less likely to believe they had increased in
importance) in the prior 2–3 years.
16 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
The sex differences found in beliefs about change in mate preferences paralleled the
sex differences in mate preferences found in past mate selection research and in our own
cross-sectional analyses. For example, the largest sex difference in beliefs about change
was for resources/success, with women scoring higher (i.e., they perceived a greater
increase or a lesser decrease than did men). Also, relative to men, women perceived a
greater increase and a greater decrease, respectively, in the importance of the shared
social network and the importance of physical appearance.
Strengths, limitations, and future research directions
Our investigation is one of few studies that have addressed the associations of age with
partner trait preferences, and the only study that has systematically examined people’s beliefs
about how their own mate preferences have changed over time. Other strengths of the study
include the relatively large and diverse sample of unpartnered individuals and consideration
of additional individual difference variables that could be confounded with being single past
emerging adulthood. For example, almost no prior mate selection research has considered
how shyness is associated with mate preferences, although research suggests that the pro-
portion of the population who is shy has been increasing (Carducci & Zimbardo, 1995).
As is true of any study, our study also has limitations. First, although there were two
types of temporal data collected (cross-sectional analyses of age differences in mate
preferences and retrospective data on change in mate preferences), both types of data
suffer weaknesses in interpretation. Second, although we obtained a sample diverse in
age, we limited our analyses to those 40 and under. Third, there could be other variables
important to examine that could be associated with mate selectivity in addition to but
possibly associated with age—such as readiness to enter or commit to a relationship,
mate value, desire for children, financial status, and length of singlehood.
While the joint consideration of cross-sectional and retrospective analyses to examine
how mate preferences change over time was a strength of our study, adding a long-
itudinal component by surveying the same participants over many years would be a
direction for future research. Although challenging to do, it would be interesting to begin
a longitudinal study with adolescents in high school and follow them through emerging
adulthood to examine changes in mate preferences with age, relationship transitions, and
other life experiences. Furthermore, although research has generally not addressed
cohort changes in mate preferences (for a recent exception, see Boxer, Noonan, &
Whelan, 2015), another interesting avenue for future research would be a panel study in
which individuals from the same universities (and classes), completing the same mea-
sures, are compared over many years in their mate preferences.
Despite these limitations, our study contributed to the understanding of how people’s
expressed mate preferences and their beliefs about changes in preferences are associated
with age and other individual difference variables.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ryan Willard for his contributions to an earlier version of this
paper including a poster presentation at the 2017 mini-conference for the International Association
for Relationship Research; Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244.
Sprecher et al. 17
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Open research statement
As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the
following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the
research are available upon request by emailing sprecher@ilstu.edu.
Notes
1. This is referred to in various ways in the literature, including marriage market, mating market,
and field of eligibles (or desirables). We use the more general term, partner availability.
2. We asked our participants to reflect over a 2- to 3–year period rather than a longer period for
several reasons: (1) people are limited in their ability to remember for longer periods; (2)
longitudinal studies that have examined change over time in mate preferences have focused
on 2–3 years (Bleske-Rechek & Ryan, 2015; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005); (3) the one
relevant study (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2009, study 1) also asked about a similar time frame.
3. This final sample size was after eliminating 24 participants over the age of 40, 24 college
students who were accidentally given an earlier version of the paper survey, 20 who did not
indicate their age, and any who may have opened the online survey but did not complete enough
of the survey to be considered. In addition, some MTurk participants were eliminated for not
meeting the criteria (we eliminated seven identifying from a non-North American country and
four who did notpass the attention items included in the survey or who had toomuch missing data).
4. These response options were selected to avoid a ceiling effect and low variance in responses
compared to, for example, options that refer to importance.
5. We decided not to include an item on parenting potential in the analyses—even though it was
originally included in the list—because it would not be relevant to all, particularly some of our
older participants; however, for descriptive results for this item, see the Supplementary File.
6. We conducted a set of parallel tests in which we used age as a continuous predictor and as a
quadratic effect in predicting choosiness. The results of these tests were similar to the results
that we found when using age as a categorical predictor. The quadratic effects were generally
small and followed a largely linear pattern, and therefore, we maintained our use of linear
analyses (see the Supplementary File).
7. Age was positively associated with shyness (r¼.13, p< .001) and negatively associated with
the perception of available partners (r¼.33, p< .001).
8. The correlation between the overall composite of change and the overall composite of current
mate selectivity was .44 (p< .001), indicating that the more selective participants were in their
current mate preferences, the more likely they were to perceive that their mate preferences had
increased (or the less likely they were to perceive that their mate preferences had decreased)
over the past 2–3 years.
9. We conducted another set of complementary tests in which we used age as a continuous
predictor and as a quadratic effect in predicting beliefs about change. The results of these tests
were similar to the results that we found when using age as a categorical predictor. Because the
quadratic effects were again generally small and followed a largely linear pattern, we main-
tained our use of linear analyses (see the Supplementary File).
18 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Emmers-Sommer, T., & Sahlstein, E. (1998). Reducing dating anxiety: A
meta-analysis. Communication Reports,11, 49–55.
Anderson, C. A., & Harvey, R. J. (1988). Brief report: Discriminating between problems in living:
An examination of measures of depression, loneliness, shyness, and social anxiety. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology,6, 482–491.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. American Psychologist,55, 469–480.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1531–1544.
Bleske-Rechek, A., & Ryan, D. E. (2015). Continuity and change in emerging adults’ mate
preferences and mating orientations. Personality and Individual Differences,72, 90–95.
Bleske-Rechek, A., VandenHeuvel, B., & Vander Wyst, M. (2009). Age variation in mating
strategies and mate preferences: Beliefs versus reality. Evolutionary Psychology,7, 179–205.
Boxer, C. F., Noonan, M. C., & Whelan, C. B. (2015). Measuring mate preferences: A replication
and extension. Journal of Family Issues,36, 163–187.
Bredow, C. A. (2015). Chasing prince charming: Partnering consequences of holding unrealistic
standards for a spouse. Personal Relationships,22, 476–501.
Bredow, C. A., Huston, T. L., & Glenn, N. D. (2011). Market value, quality of the pool of potential
mates, and singles’ confidence about marrying. Personal Relationships,18, 39–57.
Brook, C. A., & Willoughby, T. (2017). Shyness and social anxiety assessed through self-report:
What are we measuring? Journal of Personality Assessment, 1–10. Published Online in
Advance. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223891.2017.13
88808
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Wood, D. (2013). Mate preferences across life and across the world. Social
Psychological and Personality Science,4, 100–107.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in
37 cultures. Behavioral and Brian Sciences,12, 1–14.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review,100, 204–232.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences
in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships,9, 271–278.
Carducci, B. J., & Zimbardo, P. (1995). Are you shy? Psychology Today,64, 34–40.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,41, 330–339.
Cobb, N. P., Larson, J. H., & Watson, W. L. (2003). Development of the attitudes about romance
and mate selection scale. Family Relations,52, 222–231.
Fales, M. R., Frederick, D. A., Garcia, J. R., Gildersleeve, K. A., Haselton, M. G., & Fisher, H. E.
(2016). Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and
resources in two national US studies. Personality and Individual Differences,88, 78–87.
Sprecher et al. 19
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Men’s and women’s mate preferences in the United States,
Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,26, 728–750.
Kerckhoff, A. C., & Davis, K. E. (1962). Value consensus and need complementarity in mate
selection. American Sociological Review,27, 295–303.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Understanding social anxiety: Social, personality and clinical perspectives
(Vol. 153). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lewis, K. G., & Moon, S. (1997). Always single and single again women: A qualitative study.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,23, 115–134.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C.
McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication appre-
hension (pp. 13–38). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Con-
ceptual and operational distinctions. Communication Studies,33, 458–468.
Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate
selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 1288–1297.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal
Relationships,5, 357–387.
Schneier, F. R., Heckelman, L. R., Garfinkel, R., Campeas, R., Fallon, B. A., Gitow, A., ...
Liebowitz, M. R. (1994). Functional impairment in social phobia. Journal of Clinical Psychia-
try,55, 322–331.
Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences.
Human Nature,23, 447–466.
Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate
preferences. Personality and Individual Differences,39, 447–458.
Sharp, E. A., & Ganong, L. (2011). “I’m a loser, I’m not married, let’s just all look at me”:
Ever-single women’s perceptions of their social environment. Journal of Family Issues,32,
956–980.
Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., & Impett, A.
(2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,105, 1049–1073.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner
preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships,19, 463–481.
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences
examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 1074–1080.
Wenzel, A., & Emerson, T. (2009). Mate selection in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,28, 341–363.
Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2009). Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force
and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,96, 1226.
Yang, M. L., & Chiou, W. B. (2010). Looking online for the best romantic partner reduces decision
quality: The moderating role of choice-making strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking,13, 207–210.
20 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)
... The age-related shift in mate preferences includes decreased preferences in physical characteristics (e.g., curvaceous) but increased preferences for softheartedness and conventionality (Brumbaugh & Wood, 2013); a change that was stronger in women. Further, people in their 30's do not put as strong emphasis on physical attractiveness as people in their 20's; however, men's preferences for physical appearance decreased more steeply than women's as they were growing older (Sprecher et al., 2019; but see Apostolou & Eleftheriou, 2022). On the other hand, women were more interested in social status and preferred men with a stable income, but this preference increased only until their 40s, then it declined (Fales et al., 2016). ...
... We studied nonlinear relationships between age, education, self-perceived mate value, and mate preferences and aversions. While age is a frequently studied and assumed predictor of mate preference changes over the lifespan (Brumbaugh & Wood, 2013;Fales et al., 2016;Sprecher et al., 2019), we found trivial associations with age (explained variances ranged between < 1% and 3%) even when considering curved and sex-moderated associations too. The tiny change in preferences between 18 and 50 years is rather surprising. ...
Article
Full-text available
While there is substantial research on what people want in their romantic and sexual partners, much of this work focuses on WEIRD, youthful samples, fails to consider the role of undesirable characteristics (i.e., things people do not want in partners) at all, or in conjunction with desirable characteristics (i.e., things people do want in partners), and may be overly reliant on psychometric approaches to pivotal variables in mating psychology like mate value and sociosexuality. In a nationally representative (online) sample of 2280 people from Czechia (aged between 18 and 50 years old), we examined linear and quadratic age, education, and self-perceived mate value (desirability) effects on the desired levels in mate choice of eight undesirable and seven desirable characteristics in men and women in relation to ostensible metrics of mate value. Self-perceived mate value alone explained little variance (men 1%, women 2%), while all mate value and mating strategy indicators together explained little variance of mate preferences and aversions (men 3%, women 5%). Desirable characteristics were better explained by mate value than undesirable ones. Our results are in line with evolutionary predictions suggesting that women are more demanding. Also, more qualities to offer correlate with more expectations in a partner.
... Preferences for some characteristics such as physical attractiveness tend to decrease with age, whereas preferences for intrinsic characteristics (i.e., emotional stability, ambition) have been found to increase with age in some samples (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2009). Although preferences for certain characteristics may increase or decrease with age, older individuals have been found to be less selective overall (Sprecher et al., 2019). Differences in preferences for certain characteristics in a romantic partner between age groups have been inconsistent. ...
... Another limitation of this study was the age difference between the samples, with the asexual sample being older than the allosexual sample. However, the majority of individuals in both samples were in early adulthood, whereas changes in preferences for certain characteristics in a romantic partner have been examined across decades and tend to be minor between consecutive age groups (Sprecher et al., 2019). Nevertheless, we controlled for age in our statistical model and we observed significant main effects of age (but not interactions with asexual identity) on only three qualities; exciting personality, easygoing, and intelligent, the latter of which is consistent with prior research (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2009). ...
Article
Asexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by a lack of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is likely associated with preferences for certain characteristics in romantic partners, such as physical attractiveness. Preferred partner characteristics can be influenced by an individual’s sexual orientation, gender, and age. Allosexual (N = 239; male = 48, female = 181, other = 4; Age M = 20.48 years) and asexual participants (N = 149; male = 36, female = 88, other = 23; Age M = 25.54 years) recruited from a pool of psychology students and through online asexual communities were presented with a survey in which a total of 388 participants rated 13 characteristics according to how desirable they were in a potential long-term romantic partner. Characteristics that are related to physical attractiveness were predicted to be rated lower by asexual participants than by allosexual participants. Asexual participants rated the desire to have children as being less desirable in a romantic partner than allosexual participants did. However, preferences for other traits, such as exciting personality, creative and artistic, and religious, were dependent on interactions of gender and attraction to men or women. Because asexual individuals report generally lower levels of sexual attraction, it will be important for future research to consider romantic attraction as a more nuanced measure than sexual orientation alone when considering sex differences in asexual and allosexual populations.
... Two previous studies addressed perceptions of change in ideal partner preferences. Sprecher et al. (2018) asked 738 single participants aged 18 to 40 how they believed to have changed across two to three years in their preferences for a physically attractive partner, a partner's status and resources, his or her social network and intrinsic characteristics. In the Sprecher et al. (2018) sample, participants believed to place higher importance on all dimensions compared to earlier in life, whereas older individuals assumed to have changed to a smaller degree than younger individuals. ...
... Sprecher et al. (2018) asked 738 single participants aged 18 to 40 how they believed to have changed across two to three years in their preferences for a physically attractive partner, a partner's status and resources, his or her social network and intrinsic characteristics. In the Sprecher et al. (2018) sample, participants believed to place higher importance on all dimensions compared to earlier in life, whereas older individuals assumed to have changed to a smaller degree than younger individuals. One exception was physical attractiveness: Women, but not men believed that they would value physical attractiveness less as compared to two to three years earlier in their life. ...
Article
Ideal partner preferences for traits in a partner are said to be stable cognitive constructs. However, longitudinal studies investigating the same participants’ ideals repeatedly have so far been limited to relatively short retest intervals of maximum three years. Here, we investigate stability and change of ideals across 13 years and participants’ insight into how ideals have changed. 204 participants (M = 46.2 years, SD = 7.4, 104 women) reported their ideals at two time points. We found a mean rank-order stability of r = .42 and an overall profile stability of r = .73 (distinctive r = .53). Some ideals changed over time, e.g. increased for status-resources, in relation to age and parenthood. We found some, but varying insight into how ideals had changed (mean r = .20). Results support the idea of ideals being stable cognitive constructs, but suggest some variability related to demands of different life stages.
... Lastly, in order to reduce heterogeneity in the group resulting from changes in partner preferences with age (Boothroyd & Vukovic, 2019;Sprecher et al., 2019), 12 participants that were aged between 50 and 72 years (> 3 SD from the mean age) were excluded from further analysis. Overall, data from 479 participants was included in the final analysis. ...
... This criterion was not specified in the pre-registration as we did not aim to recruit a narrow age range per se. However, as partner preferences change with age (Boothroyd & Vukovic, 2019;Sprecher et al., 2019) and only a small number of participants were aged 50 years or older, excluding these data allowed us to reduce variance resulting from age-related effects. Including these 12 participants did not change the reported effects on preferences for physical attractiveness and status; however, it reduced the interaction effects on preferences for consciousness and intelligence. ...
Article
Full-text available
Sex differences in mate preferences are ubiquitous, having been evidenced across generations and cultures. Their prevalence and persistence have compellingly placed them in the evolutionarily adaptive context of sexual selection. However, the psycho-biological mechanisms contributing to their generation and maintenance remain poorly understood. As such a mechanism, sexual attraction is assumed to guide interest, desire, and the affinity toward specific partner features. However, whether sexual attraction can indeed explain sex differences in partner preferences has not been explicitly tested. To better understand how sex and sexual attraction shape mate preferences in humans we assessed how partner preferences differed across the spectrum of sexual attraction in a sample of 479 individuals that identified as asexual, gray-sexual, demisexual or allosexual. We further tested whether romantic attraction predicted preference profiles better than sexual attraction. Our results show that sexual attraction accounts for highly replicable sex differences in mate preferences for high social status and financial prospects, conscientiousness, and intelligence; however, it does not account for the enhanced preference for physical attractiveness expressed by men, which persists even in individuals with low sexual attraction. Instead, sex differences in physical attractiveness preference are better explained by the degree of romantic attraction. Furthermore, effects of sexual attraction on sex differences in partner preferences were grounded in current rather than previous experiences of sexual attraction. Taken together, the results support the idea that contemporary sex differences in partner preferences are maintained by several psycho-biological mechanisms that evolved in conjunction, including not only sexual but also romantic attraction.
... Internet dating applications have led to emerging adults being more aware of the characteristics and criteria for who they want to date (Sprecher et al., 2019). Participants expressed that emerging adults often feel distress from the ending of relationships, conflicts with romantic partners, navigating who they want to date, and traversing internet dating applications. ...
Article
Full-text available
Emerging adults (18-29 years) are at a vulnerable developmental stage for mental health issues. The counseling field has been slow to adapt to the evolving landscape of the specific needs of emerging adult clients. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the experiences of professional counselors who primarily counsel emerging adult clients. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, data was collected from 11 professional counselors to produce four major themes of their experiences working with emerging adult clients: parental pressures, self-discovery, transitions, and dating and attachment. The findings from this study provide insights regarding practices and preparation for professional counselors to work with emerging adult clients.
... Conversely, such a pattern was not observed in the older adult group; participants from the middle adulthood age category (Arab MA-M, MA-F, and British MA-M) did not show significant differences in their responses to AM or AF. This finding resonates with Sprecher et al.'s insights on mate preferences, which suggests diminishing gender preferences with increasing age [61]. It's important to note the parallels drawn here are not directly from cybersecurity contexts. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study investigates how age and gender similarity between individuals and potential social engineers affect the individuals’ trust and risk-taking behaviors. We crafted and face validated 16 personas, varying in demographics and visual cues, and inquired whether participants would agree to use each persona’s offer to connect to the internet via their personal mobile hotspot, as well as the degree of trust they placed in the persona’s intentions. Individuals were informed about the potential risks associated with using another person’s mobile hotspot and that the person offering can be, but not necessarily, malicious. Data from 635 participants (322 Arabs and 313 British) were collected through an online survey. Participants were categorized by gender into male and female groups, and by age into two groups: early adulthood (18–35 years) and middle adulthood (36–59 years). Our results showed a correlation between trust and offer acceptance across all participant groups except for British females in middle adulthood. Additionally, participants, regardless of their gender and age groups, exhibited greater trust and acceptance towards personas who were female or older. Arab sample did not indicate a significant gender preference in aged personas; however, the British early adulthood group displayed a significant inclination towards accepting the offer from aged female personas over aged male personas. While demographic similarity between the potential manipulator personas and participants did not significantly impact the participants trust and risk-taking, our study uncovered differences in trust and offer acceptance when both age and gender demographics were considered together, suggesting nuanced effects of demographic matching and mismatching on taking security risks. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating bias awareness and debiasing techniques to reduce high reliance on demographic or cultural stereotypes.
... Some studies have investigated endogamous relationship preferences within particular communities, such as the Nayars of southern India (Karthikeyan & Fisher, 2023), the Turkish Cypriot community of North Cyprus (Çağansoy, 2018), and the Zikri Baluch people of Pakistan (Pastner, 1981). Other studies examining more racially and ethnically diverse participant samples have focused on specific aspects of endogamous motivations, such as regional preferences in cultural traits (i.e., Western European, South Asian; Lalonde et al., 2013), preferences based on political orientation (Kandler et al., 2012), sex differences in romantic partner preferences (Castro et al., 2021), or associations between age and partner preferences (Sprecher et al., 2019). Other work has offered evolutionary frameworks to describe the ultimate motivations for intergroup dating bias (McDonald et al., 2011(McDonald et al., , 2015, but to date, no studies have compiled a comprehensive set of explicit, proximal motivations for choosing endogamous romantic relationships. ...
Article
Full-text available
People tend to select romantic partners who belong to the same social group as themselves (i.e., endogamy). However, there is limited research on the proximal psychological motivations for choosing endogamous relationship partners. The purpose of this research was to develop a measure of motivations for endogamous relationship preferences and to assess whether such motivations were associated with actual dating experiences and attitudes toward endogamy across four common social categories: race and/or ethnicity, religion, social class, and education. Data from an online sample of participants (Study 1, n = 341) were used to generate items assessing motivations for endogamous relationship preferences. This initial set of items was administered to a new sample of participants (Study 2, n = 193) to establish the component structure of the measure and to examine whether the motivational components were associated with participants’ past exogamous dating experiences as well as the perceived importance of dating within one’s own racial and/or ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, and educational group. Endogamy motivations characterized by intergroup prejudice were the strongest and most consistent correlates of endogamous relationships and the perceived importance of endogamy. Study 3 (n = 332) replicated the component structure of the measure and the general pattern of associations documented in Study 2, and provided evidence for the measure’s construct validity. The overall findings suggest that intergroup prejudice partially explains preferences for endogamous relationships.
... This may explain the observed lack of correlation between trust and acceptance for MA-F participants, supporting the hypothesis that societal factors may signi cantly in uence this group decision to accept. Details on the correlation analysis for British MA-F, and its comparison to EA-F, are available in Fig. 1S suggests diminishing gender preferences with increasing age [50]. It's important to note the parallels drawn here are not directly from cybersecurity contexts. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
This study investigates how age and gender similarity between individuals and potential social engineers affect the individuals’ trust and risk-taking behaviors. We crafted and face validated 16 personas, varying in demographics and visual cues, and inquired whether participants would agree to use each persona's offer to connect to the internet via their personal mobile hotspot, as well as the degree of trust they placed in the persona's intentions. Individuals were informed about the potential risks associated with using another person's mobile hotspot and that the person offering can be, but not necessarily, malicious. Data from 635 participants (322 Arabs and 313 British) were collected through an online survey. Participants were categorized by gender into male and female groups, and by age into two groups: early adulthood (18–35 years) and middle adulthood (36–59 years). Our results showed a correlation between trust and offer acceptance across all participant groups except for British females in middle adulthood. Additionally, participants, regardless of their gender and age groups, exhibited greater trust and acceptance towards personas who were female or older. Arab sample did not indicate a significant gender preference in aged personas; however, the British early adulthood group displayed a significant inclination towards accepting the offer from aged female personas over aged male personas. While demographic similarity between the potential manipulator personas and participants did not significantly impact the participants trust and risk-taking, our study uncovered differences in trust and offer acceptance when both age and gender demographics were considered together, suggesting nuanced effects of demographic matching and mismatching on taking security risks. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating bias awareness and debiasing techniques to reduce high reliance on demographic or cultural stereotypes.
Article
Full-text available
This research explores the impact that gender and age have on motivations, experiences, and perceptions regarding the use of Tinder. Based on an inductive analysis of 37 semi-structured interviews with heterosexual Tinder users, we specifically examine gender and age differences in motivations, match selection, and communication management on this mobile dating app. The findings show that age differences have a more significant effect on motivations than gender differences do, whereby older adults use the app to find a stable partner, and young adults use it for sex. Women are more selective when picking matches than men, and when they make these selections, they pay special attention to male attributes that are typically associated with maintaining stable relationships. In contrast, men tend to focus almost exclusively on physical appearance. Between the match and the first date, users need to deal with a considerable volume of communication, which involves the use of different communication media in a series of consecutive stages, toward which matches normatively orient themselves. This transition to new media and stages, in which men tend to take the initiative and women assume the sanctioning role, marks a kind of incremental passage to intimacy. We conclude that, in their courting conduct, Tinder users perform conventional gender scripts that are typical of the heteronormative model of intimate relationships.
Article
Full-text available
The distinction between shyness and social anxiety remains unclear in the literature. In an attempt to shed further light on this issue, our research evaluated whether shyness and social anxiety were the same construct underlying various measurement scales. Participants (N = 801, Mage = 36.21, range = 18–74, female = 53.10%) responded to 10 questionnaires assessing either shyness or social anxiety. Evidence indicated that the scales were highly correlated and loaded onto 1 factor. Confirmatory factor analysis corroborated this finding. A second exploratory factor analysis revealed that all the shyness and social anxiety items best loaded together onto 3 factors: one corresponding to fear of negative evaluation, embarrassment, self-consciousness, scrutiny, authority, interaction anxiety, and shyness (71.0%); a second comprised of primarily interaction anxiety and shyness (17.7%); and a third associated with performance anxiety (7.5%). All scales were similarly discriminated from sociability. Overall, the constructs of shyness and social anxiety were not differentiated from each other. Researchers should carefully consider what items are included in shyness and social anxiety scales if these constructs are to be distinguished from one another.
Article
Full-text available
Mate preferences have a long research history in the social sciences, yet given their evolving nature they must be revisited periodically. We use evolutionary psychology and social role paradigms to frame our study and contribute to this body of work in two important ways. First, we examine preference trends over the past 25 years and find that both men and women increasingly place a higher value on a mate's financial prospects and desire for home and children. Second, we compare results generated from qualitative mate preference data with two popular methods in mate preference literature in terms of substantive findings and methodological utility.
Article
Full-text available
The relationships between depression, loneliness, shyness, and social anxiety were examined in a self-report questionnaire study. Standard measures of these constructs were obtained from 302 undergraduates. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were conducted to test several different models of these measures. The results indicated that: (1) the shyness and social anxiety scales measured the same construct, (2) the resulting three measures (depression, loneliness, shyness/social anxiety) are moderately interrelated, and (3) several items in the standard scales load too highly on one or more unpredicted factors. The importance of obtaining factorially pure measures of these problems in living, and possible modifications to the scales, are discussed.
Article
According to a "mating market" approach, people with desirable traits have a stronger "bargaining hand" and can be more selective when choosing partners. We examined how heterosexual mate preferences varied by gender, age, personal income, education, and appearance satisfaction (Study 1 N= 22,815; Study 2 N= 4790). Men and women differed in the percentage indicating it was "desirable" or "essential" that their potential partner was good-looking (92% vs. 84%; d=.39), had a slender body (80% vs. 58%; d=.53), had a steady income (74% vs. 97%; d= 1.17), and made/will make a lot of money (47% vs. 69%; d=-.49). There were also gender differences in whether it was "very important" or "a must have" their partner made at least as much money as they do (24% vs. 46%; d=.60) and had a successful career (33% vs. 61%; d=.57), but not in whether their partner was physically attractive to them (40% vs. 42%; d=.03). Wealthier men and people with better appearance satisfaction had stronger preferences for good looking and slender partners. Preferences varied within and between genders, and were linked to bargaining hand in the mating market.
Article
Although social scientists have generally assumed that people's standards for a spouse shape their marital behavior, systematic investigations of the role of mate standards in partnering have been rare. Using survey data collected from 471 unmarried individuals and their peer informants, this study used a novel, residual-based approach to quantify the attainability (rather than the absolute stringency) of people's standards for a spouse. Regression analyses using this index of unrealistic criteria revealed that holding less realistic standards for a marriage partner was associated with several indicators of a propensity to delay or forgo marriage, including greater difficulty establishing high-quality romantic relationships, lower expectations to marry one's current partner, and lower levels of psychological and behavioral investment in marrying.
Article
The various milestones and transitions of emerging adulthood have led previous researchers to investigate continuity and change in personality traits during this life period. In the current study, we build on that research by investigating continuity and change during emerging adulthood in mate preferences and mating orientations. Following past research, we hypothesized that mate preferences and mating orientations would demonstrate weak-to-moderate rank-order stability over 3 years of emerging adulthood. We also hypothesized that emerging adults would display mean-level changes that reflect increasing maturity, such as an increased emphasis on long-term committed relationships and partners’ internal attributes and a decreased emphasis on short-term sexual relationships and partners’ physical attractiveness. We followed 200 young adults from their first year to their fourth year in college. Analyses revealed weak-to-moderate rank-order stability but very little mean-level change in mate preferences and mating orientations. We discuss limitations of this study and directions for future research.