Personality, gender, and background predictors of partner preferences

Studies on long and short-term mate preferences of heterosexual individuals have been particularly concerned with two areas, namely sex differences and similarity preferences (Back, Penke, Schmukle, Sachse, Borkenau, & Asendorpf, 2011; Kurzban & Weedem, 2005; Lozano, 2009; Simpson & Gangestad, 1992; Shackelford, Schmitt & Buss, 2005; Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009). This study was concerned with preferences for six factors (ability, personality, character, physical characteristics, resources and compatibility) in long term partners as opposed to short-term partner preferences. Studies assessing mate selection have assessed such aspects as: content analysis of "lonely hearts" columns (Greenlees & McGrew, 1994; Harrison & Saeed, 1977); post "commercial date" speed interactions ratings (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005) psychometric studies on hypothetical, prototypic people with known specified characteristics as well as ratings of pictures/photographs of individuals (e.g. Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009). In addition, some studies have also assessed factor structure of mate preferences (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas & Giles, 1999) as well as trade-offs and compromises in mate choice (Shackleford et al, 2005); and the effect of self-concept on mate choice (Kenrick, Groth, Trost & Sadalla, 1993). Two major findings with regards to sex differences in mate selection criteria were noted by Buss (1985). Universally, women are more concerned with prospective partner's potential earning ability, while men pay relatively more attention to physical factors, such as attractiveness and health. Although both women and men are concerned with partners' attractiveness and resourcefulness, the differences lie in the weight given to these two groups of characteristics. Recent studies have also demonstrated cultural and temporal differences in mate preferences (Chang, Wang, Shackleford & Buss, 2011). Theoretical Hypotheses Buss and Barnes (1986) proposed two hypotheses to explain this phenomenon: evolutionary theory hypothesis and the sex-role socialization hypothesis. The evolutionary theory explains mate strategies by considering reproductive success. Buss (1987) argued that as for men, their primary constraint on a male's reproductive success is access to fecund and reproductively valuable females. Therefore, males are hypothesized to value youth, physical appearance, and health since they provide strong cues to reproductive value in females. Females are hypothesized to value male appearance less because male appearance is not strongly correlated with resource potential. The sex-role socialization hypothesis, on the other hand, states that women are typically excluded from power and are viewed as "objects of exchange. " Due to their restricted paths for individual advancement, they seek mates with characteristics that are associated with power, such as earning capacity and higher education. Hypergamy composed the primary traditional channel for upward mobility for women, which is the tendency for women to marry upward in socioeconomic status. In contrast, men place importance on the quality of the "exchange object," and therefore value physical attractiveness (e.g. enhanced value as a sex object). Thus, physical attractiveness becomes a central mean for designating relative value among exchange commodities. Traditional sex-role socialization practices are assumed to maintain and support these structural differences, and are used to inculcate role-appropriate values in males and females. Townsend (1989) found that the increasing socio-economic status of women increased their socioeconomic status for mates, reducing their pool of acceptable partners, while men's increasing socioeconomic status increased their pool of acceptable partners. As predicted, Wiederman and Algeier (1992) found that men placed more emphasis on good looks and women on good financial prospects factors. …