Choosing a Partner: The Psychology Behind Mate Selection and Marriage

UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 8.4 Free with a free account

Choosing a Partner: The Psychology Behind Mate Selection and Marriage

Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 8: Friendship, Love, and Close RelationshipsSection 8.4 · lesson 50 of 8510 min · free with a free account

← The Shape of Love: Sternberg's Triangular Theory and What It PredictsNext lesson: Love, Commitment, and Family: Courtship, Marriage, and Childbearing →

Earn 3 college credits for Advanced Social PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 310 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Three frameworks for mate selection, and why proximity outperforms all of them.

  • Compare evolutionary, exchange, and sociocultural accounts
  • Explain parental investment theory and its predictions
  • Apply assortative mating and the matching hypothesis
  • Weigh evolved dispositions against structural conditions

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,267 words). Read along, or search it.

Friendship, Love, and Close Relationships

Choosing a Partner

Choosing a partner is one of the most consequential decisions people make. So you would expect preference to be the main story. It is not, and that is the surprise this section builds toward. Three theoretical frameworks compete here. Evolutionary accounts, exchange accounts, and sociocultural accounts. Each one is answering a slightly different question. We will work through the evidence for each in turn. Including the study most often quoted, and most often quoted incompletely. And then we will look at what actually predicts who marries whom. The answer is closer to a floor plan than to a preference.

Three Approaches

The Most Consequential Social Decision

Start by laying out the three perspectives. Evolutionary approaches emphasize adaptive mate preferences. Preferences shaped by natural selection, and by sexual selection. Social exchange theories conceptualize selection as a marketplace. One in which individuals trade valued attributes. Sociocultural approaches point somewhere else entirely. At cultural scripts, opportunity structures, and social norms. Things that constrain and direct partner choice from outside. Notice these are not really competing on one question. The first asks why a preference exists at all. The second asks how preferences get traded against each other. And the third asks who was even available to choose from.

Trivers, 1972

Parental Investment Theory

The evolutionary account rests on Trivers's parental investment theory, from nineteen seventy-two. And its first strength is that it is not about humans. It makes a general prediction about any species at all. The sex that invests more in offspring will be more selective. Each choice costs more, so each choice gets made more carefully. The lower-investing sex will compete more vigorously instead. Competing for access to those high-investing mates. And that is what makes it testable rather than merely plausible. The theory is stated in terms of investment, not in terms of sex. Species where males invest more should show the reversed pattern. So applying it to humans is a second step, and arguable separately.

Applied To Humans

What the Theory Predicts

Applied to humans, the theory works from one asymmetry. Women bear the disproportionate biological costs of gestation and lactation. From that, the theory predicts women will be more selective. Prioritizing qualities that signal resource acquisition capacity. Status, wealth, ambition. And qualities signaling genetic quality, such as physical symmetry and health. Men have a lower minimum reproductive investment. So they are predicted to value fertility cues instead. Specifically youth, and physical attractiveness. Everything I just said is what the theory claims should be true. Whether it is true, and by how much, is the next two slides.

Buss, 1989

37 Cultures, and What They Agreed On

The test everyone cites is Buss, from nineteen eighty-nine. He surveyed ten thousand and forty-seven respondents. Across thirty-seven cultures. And he found consistent sex differences, in the predicted directions. Women valued resource acquisition potential more than men did. Men valued physical attractiveness and youth more than women did. That is the half of the study everyone quotes. Here is the half that usually gets dropped. Both sexes ranked the same three traits highest overall. Kindness, intelligence, and dependability. So the differences are real, and they sit on top of a shared ranking. Which suggests substantial universality beyond the sex differences.

The Marketplace

Selection as Negotiated Exchange

The second framework treats partner selection as a marketplace. Social exchange theory, from Thibaut and Kelley in nineteen fifty-nine. You have met the standards already. Comparison level is what one believes one deserves. It sets the threshold of acceptability. Comparison level for alternatives is what the best alternative offers. It sets the threshold for leaving, or for not choosing in the first place. The key prediction that follows is assortative mating. Individuals tend to pair with others of similar overall market value. Note the word overall, because it permits trade-offs. Similar total value does not mean similar on every dimension. High attractiveness can be traded against high status, for instance.

Assortative Mating

Similar on Almost Everything Measured

And assortative mating is consistently demonstrated in the data. The list of dimensions it holds for is long. Physical attractiveness, documented by Feingold in nineteen eighty-eight. Education, and intelligence. Socioeconomic background. Religion, and ethnicity. And attitudes, which brings back Byrne's law from the last chapter. Now look at that list again, because it is hard to explain away. Some of those dimensions are visible at a single glance. Others are not discoverable without a conversation. A mechanism that produces sorting on both has to work at several stages.

Matching

Aspiration Against Rejection Risk

The matching hypothesis makes a narrower claim than assortative mating. Walster and colleagues stated it in nineteen sixty-six. People pair with partners of similar physical attractiveness. And it names the two forces producing that outcome. The desire to maximize partner attractiveness pulls one way. The fear of rejection pulls the other way. Longitudinal data generally support the hypothesis for actual couples. But there is a qualifier that matters more than the finding. It holds even when individuals ideally prefer more attractive partners. Stated preference and revealed pairing simply come apart. That is a general methodological warning, not a detail about dating. A study measuring only what people say is measuring half the process.

Opportunity

Proximity Beats Preference

Now the result that outperforms all this theory. Proximity, meaning physical and institutional closeness. It is one of the strongest predictors of whom people actually marry. People disproportionately marry neighbors. And co-workers, and fellow students, and co-religionists. Be careful here. It is not that proximity is itself a preference. It is that proximity structures the pool of available potential partners. The preference never gets to operate on anyone outside that pool. Which has an uncomfortable consequence for the idea of free choice. Free choice in partner selection is always shaped by structural opportunity. You choose freely, from a set you did not choose.

Eagly And Wood, 1999

The Biosocial Correction

Back to the evolutionary predictions, with a serious complication. Those accounts predict universal sex differences in preference. The differences do appear, but their magnitude varies across cultures. And the variation is patterned, which is the important part. Look at societies with greater gender equality. And greater female economic autonomy. There, sex differences in preference for resource-acquiring partners are smaller. Which is consistent with a specific hypothesis. That female preference for wealthy partners partly reflects structural inequality. Rather than purely evolved psychology. Eagly and Wood, in nineteen ninety-nine, called this the biosocial perspective. Evolved dispositions are real, and they interact with structural conditions. It keeps the dispositions. What it rejects is reading a preference straight off them.

Reading The Evidence

Two Ways to Misread This Literature

This literature gets misread in two opposite directions, so name both. The first error is overclaiming the differences. Quoting Buss's sex differences without the shared top three. Treating the size of a difference as fixed, when it tracks gender equality. Or simply reading a theoretical prediction as though it were a finding. The second error is dismissing the differences entirely. The sex differences in Buss's data were consistent, not marginal. Parental investment theory predicts them from asymmetric cost. And it applies across species, not just to us. Even the biosocial account keeps evolved dispositions rather than discarding them. The defensible middle holds three claims at once. Dispositions are real, structure moderates them, and opportunity picks the candidates.

Consolidate

What Actually Determines Who Marries Whom

Pull the section together. Three frameworks, evolutionary, exchange, and sociocultural, each capturing a different aspect. Buss found consistent sex differences across thirty-seven cultures. And near-universal prioritization of kindness, intelligence, and dependability. Assortative mating shows up on attractiveness, education, intelligence, religion, and attitudes. The matching hypothesis balances aspiration against rejection risk. And it holds for actual couples, whatever people say they want. Proximity structures the opportunity set that all of this operates inside. And sex differences vary with cultural gender equality. One sentence to keep. Preferences explain who you would choose. Exchange explains who would choose you back. And opportunity explains who you ever met, which does more work than expected.

About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study

Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology

Why take it here

Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study

How other people shape what we think and doAdvanced Social Psychology explains how people think about, influence and relate to one another: attitudes and persuasion, the self, prejudice and intergroup conflict, attraction and close relationships, conformity and obedience, helping and aggression. It is a common upper-level course in psychology and sociology degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Choosing a Partner: The Psychology Behind Mate Selection and Marriage

What is parental investment theory?
Parental investment theory, proposed by Robert Trivers in 1972, predicts that the sex that invests more in offspring will be choosier about mates, while the sex that invests less will compete more for access to mates. It is stated in terms of investment rather than sex, so it applies across species, including ones where males invest more and the pattern reverses. Applied to humans, it predicts women will be more selective than men.
What did David Buss find about mate preferences across cultures?
David Buss's 1989 study of 10,047 people in 37 cultures found consistent sex differences: women valued a partner's earning potential more than men did, and men valued youth and physical attractiveness more than women did. The often-forgotten half is that both sexes ranked traits such as kindness and intelligence above those qualities. The sex differences are real, but they sit on top of largely shared preferences.
What is the difference between assortative mating and the matching hypothesis?
Assortative mating is the broad tendency for people to pair with partners similar to themselves, documented for attractiveness, education, intelligence, socioeconomic background, religion, ethnicity, and attitudes. The matching hypothesis, proposed by Elaine Walster and colleagues in 1966, is narrower: people pair with partners of similar physical attractiveness, balancing the wish for an attractive partner against fear of rejection. Studies of actual couples generally support matching, even when people say they prefer more attractive partners.
Do sex differences in mate preferences vary by culture?
Yes. Sex differences in mate preferences appear widely, but their size varies across cultures. In societies with greater gender equality and more economic independence for women, the gap in preference for wealthy, resource-rich partners tends to be smaller. Alice Eagly and Wendy Wood (1999) used this pattern to support a biosocial view: evolved dispositions are real, but social and economic structures shape how strongly they show up.

About the Advanced Social Psychology course

How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 85 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 85 lessons total about 15 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.

85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Advanced Social Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →