Age Variation in Mating Strategies and Mate Preferences: Beliefs versus Reality

Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2009. 7(2): 179-205
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Original Article
Age Variation in Mating Strategies and Mate Preferences: Beliefs versus
Reality
April Bleske-Rechek, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI, USA.
Email: bleskeal@uwec.edu (Corresponding author).
Bailey VandenHeuvel, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI, USA.
Maria Vander Wyst, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI, USA.
Abstract: We conducted three studies to (1) investigate individuals’ beliefs about change
in mating desires over the course of emerging adulthood and (2) determine whether those
beliefs reflect actual variation in mating desires among emerging adults of varied ages (late
teens through twenties). In Study 1, 103 men and women gave their thoughts on how
college students change, if at all, in what they most desire in a relationship and relationship
partner as they move from being incoming freshmen to graduating seniors. In Studies 2 and
3, using a college sample and then an internet sample (ns = 288 and 307), men and women
between the ages of 18 and 26 completed mating strategies inventories and allotted a
limited number of “mate dollars” to 10 mate characteristics. Findings suggest that although
emerging adults believe that their peers’ mating desires change systematically over time,
emerging adults’ self-reported mating desires vary little with age.
Keywords: mate preferences, age variation, mating strategies.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Introduction
Influential studies on human mating in the 1980s (Buss, 1985, 1989; Buss and
Barnes, 1986) spurred a wave of research on human mate preferences and mating desires.
A quick search on PsycInfo, using “mate preference*” and “mate choice*” in humans,
generates over 250 hits, with the large majority of papers published within just the past two
decades. Several key findings can be extracted from this research. First, men and women
place similar value on kindness, love, intelligence, and emotional stability in a long-term
mate (Buss, 1989). Second, despite their similarities, men and women differ in the extent to
which they value certain characteristics in a long-term mate: On average, men value
physical attractiveness more than women do, and women value the potential for financial

---

Beliefs versus reality
success more than men do (Buss, 1989; Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, and Larsen, 2001;
Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, and Trost, 1990; Shackelford, Schmitt, and Buss, 2005). Third,
men display a higher mean level of sexual unrestrictedness than do women: Men
consistently report more favorable attitudes toward casual sex and devote more effort
toward short-term sexual relationships than women do (Simpson and Gangestad, 1991;
Schmitt, 2005).
Sex differences in attitudes toward casual sex and desire for sexual variety have
been documented with a variety of research methods (Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Clark and
Hatfield, 1989; Ellis and Symons, 1990; Haselton and Buss, 2000; Schmitt, Shackelford,
and Buss, 2001) and in over 50 nations from around the world (Schmitt, 2005; Schmitt et
al., 2003). Similarities and differences between men’s and women’s mate preferences also
have been corroborated with both non-experimental and experimental research designs
(Baize and Schroeder, 1995; Kenrick, Neuberg, Zierk, and Krones, 1994; Li, Bailey,
Kenrick, and Linsenmeier, 2002; Pawlowski and Koziel, 2002; Sprecher, Sullivan, and
Hatfield, 1994), and have been documented across cultures (Baize and Schroeder, 1995;
Buss, 1989; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1995; Pawlowski and Koziel, 2002; Toro-Morn and
Sprecher, 2003).

Change over time in mating desires
Although past research has documented these prominent similarities and differences
in men’s and women’s mating desires and mate preferences, one area of mating research
that relationship scientists currently know very little about is change over time in
individuals’ mating strategies and preferences. A two-month test-retest reliability of .94 for
short-term mating orientation (Simpson and Gangestad, 1989), as assessed by the
Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson and Gangestad, 1991), suggests intra-
individual stability in attitudes toward casual sex, at least over relatively short periods of
time. However, no research has investigated stability and change in people’s mating
strategies over a longer period of time.
To date, only one study has investigated stability and change over time in mate
preferences. Shackelford, Schmitt, and Buss (2005) assessed individuals’ mate preferences
in the first year of marriage and again in the fourth year of marriage. Shackelford et al
(2005) found little change beyond an increased emphasis on a mate’s level of agreeableness
and emotional stability. There are at least two possible explanations for this lack of change.
First, individuals’ mate preferences and desires are likely tied to their other enduring
individual differences—such as personality traits, physical appearance, and self-perceived
desirability—and thus might show the same degree of stability as do those characteristics
(McCrae and Costa, 1994). Second, the initial sample in Shackelford et al.’s (2005) study
of mate preferences consisted of married individuals and the follow-up sample consisted of
a subset of those who were still married. Perhaps change in mate preferences occurs prior
to marriage, during emerging adulthood (primarily the years of 18 to 25) when individuals
are most likely to be exploring different sexual and romantic partners and identities (Arnett,
2000). Although 94% of emerging adults hope to get married someday (Krane and
Cottreau, 1998), the median age of marriage in the United States in 2006 was 27.5 for men
and 25.9 for women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006); other industrialized countries report
similar median ages. If emerging adulthood is a time of role exploration in life and love,
one might expect that individuals in their later 20s—who have experienced assorted
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -180-

---

Beliefs versus reality
relationships and partners and who are more likely to be preparing for marriage—might
have desires that differ from those of individuals who are a decade younger (e.g., 18-19).

The current research
In summary, little is known about change over time in men’s and women’s mating
desires and mate preferences. The current studies were designed to begin to fill that gap. In
Study 1, emerging adults currently in college reported their beliefs on how people’s
relationship desires and partner preferences change over the course of college (typically 18
to 23 years of age). To determine whether those beliefs mirror reality, in Studies 2 and 3
distinct samples of emerging adults of varying ages reported their own relationship desires
and romantic partner preferences.

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

A total of 40 men and 63 women ranging from 18 to 25 years of age participated
(Male M = 20.70, Female M = 19.90). All participants were traditional college students
from a public university in the United States. Twenty of the men and 29 of the women were
advanced psychology majors who volunteered to complete a brief survey online. Twenty of
the men and 34 of the women were freshmen and sophomores who participated as part of a
brief activity in an introductory English composition class.

Instruments and Procedure
Participants responded to two questions: (1) “How, if at all, do you think young
men’s and young women’s romantic relationship desires (that is, what they want out of a
romantic relationship) change as they develop from incoming college freshmen to
graduating seniors?” and (2) “How, if at all, do you think young men’s and young women’s
partner preferences (that is, what they want in a romantic partner) change as they develop
from incoming college freshmen to graduating seniors?” Participants provided open-ended
responses either through SurveyMonkey or on paper. They then reported their age and sex.

Results and Discussion

Coding
Participants’ responses to the two questions were largely redundant. Thus, each
person’s responses were combined to make one longer response that was then coded
independently by the first author and one research assistant. Four prominent themes
emerged in the responses; these and exemplary statements from the participants are
displayed in Table 1. First, responses were coded for whether or not they mentioned an
increased long-term mating strategy with age, such as a move toward looking for a life
partner or marriage partner. Second, responses were coded for whether or not they
mentioned a decreased short-term mating strategy, such as a move toward serious
relationships rather than one-night stands. Third, responses were coded for whether or not
they mentioned an increased emphasis on personality, such as a move toward looking at
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -181-

---

Beliefs versus reality
internal characteristics and intellectual or spiritual stimulation. Finally, responses were
coded for whether or not they mentioned a decreased emphasis on physical attractiveness,
such as a move toward caring about internal rather than external beauty. Interrater
agreement for coding decisions was 96%, with disagreements resolved by discussion. All
inferential tests reported below were two-tailed, with alpha set at .05.

Table 1. Beliefs about change in college students’ relationship desires and romantic partner
preferences












_
Belief

Sample
Responses












_
Increased Long-Term Mindset
I think that as freshmen most people want just a
relationship, and by the time they are seniors they are
starting to look for someone who could be their “life
partner.” (Female, age 19)
Well as a freshman I would say most relationships are all
about physical attractions, but then as freshmen turn into
seniors they are looking more for a companion that they
one day may marry. (Male, age 18)

Decreased Short-Term Mindset
I think as a freshman, most desires are for the here and
now. I’ve noticed that most seniors are looking for more
than sexual gratification like a younger student. I think
they want more emotions and intimacy than one night
stands. (Female, age 22)
I believe partners are more focused into long-term
relationships as seniors rather than instant
gratification of freshmen. (Male, age 19)

Increased Emphasis on Personality
Freshmen are more interested in looks. Seniors will look at
physical attractiveness but they also take into account
personality, responsibility, work ethic, and other traits.
(Female, age 21)
I think graduating seniors look for intellectual qualities
rather than appearance qualities. (Male, age 22)

Decreased Emphasis on Appearance They become more selective and find more refined
characteristics (intelligence, similar interests, humor, etc.)
preferable over more crude or lustful characteristics (sex
appeal). (Female, age 22)
As a freshman, we are looking for the “hottest” person to
“hook up” with and as seniors, I think that goes out the
window and internal beauty becomes so much more
attractive. (Male, age 19)












_


Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -182-

---

Beliefs versus reality

Beliefs about change
The majority of respondents (85, or 83%) mentioned a move toward more long-
lasting, committed relationship desires. Of those, 29 (34%) also explicitly mentioned a
move away from flings and sex-only relationships. No participant mentioned the latter
without also mentioning the former. Chi square analyses showed no significant sex
difference in likelihood of mentioning an increase in long-term relationship desires (83% of
men, 83% of women), ?2(1) = .00, p = .996, whereas men were marginally more likely than
women to mention a decrease in pursuit of short-term sexual relationships (38% of men,
22% of women), ?2(1) = 2.82, p = .09.
Over half (55, or 53%) of respondents mentioned an increased emphasis on
personality traits. Of those, 32 (58%) also explicitly mentioned less emphasis on physical
attractiveness with increasing age. No participant mentioned the latter without also
mentioning the former. Chi square analyses showed no significant sex difference in
likelihood of mentioning an increased emphasis on personality (60% of men, 49% of
women), ?2(1) = 1.15, p = .29, or a decreased emphasis on physical attractiveness (38% of
men, 27% of women), ?2(1) = 1.26, p = .26.
To determine whether participants of differing ages were more or less likely to
mention a given theme, we split the sample into 18 to 20 year olds (n = 55) and 21 to 25
year olds (n = 48). Participants in the two age groups did not differ in their likelihood of
mentioning any of the four themes, all ps between .21 and .59.
Of the 103 respondents, only four felt people’s preferences do not change. For
example, one participant stated, “People’s preferences don’t change much. People are
drawn to the same type of people regardless of how old they are.” Other comments noted a
maturation of mating desires along with student maturation (but did not specify what that
maturation involved) or a move from wanting a wild and fun relationship partner to
wanting a good friend. Not a single respondent suggested that college students become
more short-term oriented or more concerned about good looks, or less long-term oriented or
less concerned about personality, as they go through college.
In summary, the findings from this study indicate a belief among college students
that people become more oriented toward commitment and marriage and less driven by
sexual desires, and more concerned about their partners’ internal attributes and less focused
on outward appearances, as they go through college. In Study 2, we investigated whether
emerging adults of varying ages differ along those lines.

STUDY 2

Method

Participants

A total of 288 individuals (118 men, mean age = 20.75; and 170 women, mean age
= 20.84) participated in Study 2.1 All participants were of heterosexual or bisexual
orientation and between the ages of 18 and 25. These participants were recruited in two
ways during the first half of the fall semester. Many (186) participants were students in
introductory and advanced psychology courses at a public university who participated in
exchange for credit toward a course research participation requirement; they completed an
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -183-

---

Beliefs versus reality
online survey. Second, as part of a class project, students in the first author’s research
methods course recruited a total of 102 friends from the university and from their
hometowns to participate; these participants completed either the paper questionnaire or an
online survey as per request. The aim was to acquire students at all stages, from those just
graduated from high school to those just graduated from college. Upon questioning, no
student in Study 2 expressed awareness of Study 1, so it is unlikely that any participants in
Study 2 had also participated in Study 1.

Instruments and Procedure
Participants completed a paper questionnaire or an online survey administered
through SurveyMonkey. Similar to the method used in previous studies (e.g., Li et al.,
2002), participants were told that they had 50 “mate dollars” to be used toward designing
their ideal romantic partner. Note that participants were not instructed to think of either a
long-term partner or short-term partner; we intentionally left the context ambiguous so that
participants’ current desires would be projected into their allotments. They were instructed
to allot between 0 and 10 dollars per characteristic, with more dollars indicating somebody
at a higher percentile of the population. Participants were told, for example, that if they
allotted 1 dollar toward ambition, then their mate would be at the 10th percentile of
ambition, or more ambitious than 10% of the population and less ambitious than 90% of
the population; if they allotted 10 dollars toward ambition, then their mate would be more
ambitious than everyone else in the population. Participants then allotted their mate dollars
to 10 mate characteristics commonly used in previous research (e.g., Buss, 1989; Li et al.,
2002; Li and Kenrick, 2006), with a request that their mate dollars add up to 50. The
characteristics were listed in alphabetical order: ambition, desire for children, emotional
stability, faithfulness, intelligence, physical attractiveness, potential for financial success,
sense of humor, similar values, and social popularity.
After allotting their mate dollars, participants reported their sex, sexual orientation,
age, and education level (high school graduate, one year of college, two years of college,
three years of college, four or more years of college, college graduate). Finally, to assess
short-term mating strategy, they answered three items taken from Simpson and Gangestad’s
(1991) Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI): (1) How many different partners have you
had sexual intercourse with during the past year?, (2) How many different partners do you
foresee yourself having sex with during the next five years (Please give a specific, realistic
estimate)?, and (3) How many people have you had sex with on ONE and ONLY ONE
occasion?

Results

Age and education
Participants were distributed across age and education level. Participant age and
education level were highly correlated, r(288) = .80, p < .001. Because previous research
on emerging adulthood focuses on age rather than on educational level, and because age
and education level were nearly redundant in this sample, we describe below the findings
from analyses using age as the predictor.
Below we provide the results of bivariate correlational analyses between age and
number of sex partners, and between age and mate dollar allotments. To facilitate the
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -184-

---

Beliefs versus reality
display of age and sex effects simultaneously in graphical form, we split age into three
groups: 18 and 19 year olds (the age of most freshmen and some sophomores; male n = 27,
female n = 32), 20 and 21 year olds (the age of most sophomores and juniors; male n = 53,
female n = 85), and 22-25 year olds (the age of most seniors, super-seniors, and college
graduates; male n = 38, female n = 53).

Age variation in short-term mating strategy and mate preferences
The results of our first study suggested that young men and women believe that
college students’ relationship desires and partner preferences change as they move through
emerging adulthood, such that with age they look more for committed relationships and
less for short-term sexual relationships, and that they become increasingly concerned with
partners’ internal attributes and less concerned with external attributes. If these beliefs
represent reality, then older students should foresee fewer sex partners in their future and
should have had fewer sex partners in the previous year. Additionally, older students
should allot more mating dollars toward personality characteristics (such as ambition,
emotional stability, intelligence, sense of humor, and potential for financial success) and
characteristics pertinent to a long-term relationship (such as faithfulness, similar values,
and desire for children). Finally, older students should allot fewer mating dollars toward
physical attractiveness.

Participants’ estimates of their future number of sex partners, reports of their recent
number of sex partners, and mate dollar allotments did not confirm these predictions. Both
across sex and within each sex, age was not associated with either foreseen number of
different sex partners in the next five years, all rs ? -.06, all ps ? .26, or number of different
sex partners in the previous year, all rs ? .09, all ps ? .15. Figure 1, with age split into the
three categories, displays this lack of an association between age and recent and foreseen
number of sexual partners. Both across sex and within sex, age was positively associated
with participants’ reported number of one-time sex partners, all rs ? .16, ps < .04. This
association between lifetime number of sex partners and age is expected, given that the
longer one lives the more sexual partners they are likely to accrue.

















Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -185-

---

Beliefs versus reality

Figure 1. Study 2 participants’ foreseen and recent number of sex partners as a function of
sex and age group. Error bars represent 95% CIs.

Men
Women

Men
Women

Age was not significantly associated with men’s and women’s mate dollar
allotments. In the overall sample, only one association neared significance: Age was
negatively associated with dollars allotted to social popularity, r(288) = -.11, p = .07 (all
other rs ? .08, ps ? .17). This trend was driven by men, for whom the association was
significant, r(118) = -.20, p = .03. No other dollar allotment was significantly associated
with age for either sex. Figure 2, with age split into the three categories, displays the
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -186-

---

Beliefs versus reality
general lack of an association between age and investment in various characteristics.
Univariate analyses of variance to compare the age groups within each sex reinforced the
link between age and investment in social popularity: 18-19 year old men invested more
dollars in social popularity than did 22-25 year old men, p = .02. No other pair-wise
comparisons were significant.

Figure 2. Study 2 participants’ mate dollar allotments as a function of sex and age group.
Error bars represent 95% CIs.

10
Men
Women
8
s
Potential for
6
d to
l Succes
ia
4
Financ
llars Allotte
o
D
2
n
Mea
0
18-19 Year Olds
20-21 Year Olds
22-25 Year Olds
Age Group

10
Men
Women
l

ica
s
8
Phy
to
6
t
ed
veness
l
lot
ti
s A
trac
4
l
l
ar
At
o
2
Mean D
0
18-19 Year Olds
20-21 Year Olds
22-25 Year Olds
Age Group

Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -187-

---

Beliefs versus reality
10
Men
Women
ness
8
t
hful
Fai
6
tted to
llo
4
s A
ar
ll
Do
2
an
e
M
0
18-19 Year Olds
20-21 Year Olds
22-25 Year Olds
Age Group


10
Men
Women
i
on
8
6
ed to Ambit
Allott
rs
4
lla
o

D
n
2
Mea
0
18-19 Year Olds
20-21 Year Olds
22-25 Year Olds
Age Group

Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(2). 2009. -188-

---