Study of Behavioral Criteria for Spouse Selection from an Evolutionary Standpoint
Subject Areas : psychologyعاصفه احمدی 1 * , Ali Akbar Saif 2 , Farhad Jomehri 3
1 -
2 -
3 - University of Alame Tabatabai, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Keywords: Evolutionary psychology, Spouse selection, Behavioral criteria for spouse selection,
Abstract :
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine gender differences in the behavioral criteria for spouse selection from the evolutionary perspective, and also to evaluate the relationship among behavioral criteria for spouse selection, gender, marital status and field of study. The population of this study consisted of 8487 students studying at some of the faculties of the Tehran University from which a sample of 416 men and women were selected through stratified sampling. The researchers formulated and subsequently administered a questionnaire entitled the “Behavioral Criteria for Spouse Selection Questionnaire”. Data analysis was carried out by the independent sample t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Scheffe post hoc test. Results showed that the most important criteria were expressing affection and boldness for women and men, respectively. With regard to gender and behavioral criteria for spouse selection, expressing affection, attractive appearance, wealth, boldness, and religiousness were higher values for women compared to men. In contrast, a woman who had pride was valued more by men. Regarding marital status, both sexes who were married considered expressing affection as the most important factor, compared to their unwed counterparts. In respect to the field of study and behavioral criteria for spouse selection, students of the Faculty of Humanities valued expressing affection more than the Arts Faculty students. Likewise, the Arts Faculty students valued the same criteria more than the Faculty of Basic Sciences students. Humanities students valued wealth more than art students, and basic sciences students valued the same criteria higher than art students. Humanities students valued religiousness more than engineering students, and humanities students valued the same criteria higher than art students. Findings of this research have confirmed the hypothesis of the evolutionary theory of gender differences in spouse selection.
هرگنهان، بی.آر؛ و السون، ام. اچ. (1388). مقدمه‌ای بر نظریه‌های یادگیری (ترجمه علی¬اکبر سیف). تهران: دوران. (تاریخ انتشار به زبان اصلی 2005).
کیامنش، علیرضا (1381). نمونه‌گیری در پژوهش‌های علوم¬تربیتی، در سالنامة پژوهش و ارزشیابی در علوم اجتماعی و رفتاری (به کوشش حسین رحمان‌سرشت)، انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، ص 30-1.
Buss, D. M. (2007). The evolution of human mating. Acta Psychological Sinica, 39, 502-512.
Buss, D. M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239-260.
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Praeger.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preference: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Toward a psychology of person-environment (PE) correlation: The role of spouse selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 361-377.
Buss, D. M. (1981). Sex differences in the evaluation and performance of dominant acts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 147-154.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behaviour. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York:
Harper and Row.
Hurtado, A. M., & Hill, K. R. (1992). Paternal effect on offspring survivorship among Ache and Hiwi hunter-gatherers: Implications for modeling pair-bond stability. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father-child relations: Cultural and biosocial contexts (pp. 31-55). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
La Cerra, M. M. (1995). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations for assessing a man’s willingness to invest in offspring. Doctoral Dissertation University of California, Santa Barbara.
Marlowe, F. W. (2003). A critical period for provisioning by Hadza men: Implications for pair bonding. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 217-229.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution,
traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-117.
Shackleford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Mate preferences of married persons in the newlywed year and three years later. Journal of Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1262-1270.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B.Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine.
Todosijević, B., Ljubinković, C., & Aranči, A. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 116-126.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. )1990. (On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17-67.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149-164.
Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 10, 241-253.
Tyler, L. E. (1965). The psychology of human differences. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.
Willerman, L. (1979). The psychology of individual and group differences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Workman, L., & Reader, W. (2010). Evolutionary psychology (2nd Ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.