Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role

Psychology of Women Quarterly

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 322-328

  Johannesen Schmidt, Mary C ^a   Eagly, Alice H ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036895136     PISSN: 03616843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00071     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., & Robinson, J.P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191-228.
2. Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14.
3. Buss, D.M. (1998). The psychology of human mate selection: Exploring the complexity of the strategic repertoire. In C. Crawford & D.L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 405-429). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Buss, D.M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., Bruchon-Sehweitzer, M., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cnltural Psychology, 21, 5-47.
5. Buss, D.M., & Kenrick, D.T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D.T Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982-1026). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
6. Cialdini, R.B., Wosinska, W., Dabul, A.J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Heszen, I. (1998). When social role salience leads to social role rejection: Modest self-presentation among women and men in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 473-481.
7. nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Doosje, B., Rojahn, K., & Fischer, A. (1999). Partner preferences as a function of gender, age, political orientation and level of education. Sex Roles, 40, 45-60.
9. Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences: Evolution versus social structure. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
11. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A.B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. Trantner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model Psychological Bulletin, 212, 125-139.
13. Gangestad, S.W., & Simpson, J.A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644.
14. Geary, D.C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55-77.
15. Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 491-512.
16. Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 115-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17. Haas, L.L. (1995). Household division of labor in industrial sodefies. In B.B. Ingoldsby & S. Smith (Eds.), Families in multicultural perspective: Perspectives on marriage and the family (pp. 268-296). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 143-154.
19. Johnson, B.T., & Eagly, A.H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psyehologieal research. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 496-528). London: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 496-523.
21. Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by culture and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 422-452.
22. Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y.S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females' preference for resourceacquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374-377.
23. Kenrick, D.T., Groth, G.E., Trost, M.R., & Sadalla, E.K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.
24. Luszyk, D. (2001) Changes in mate selection preferences as a function of socioeconomic status. Unpublished manuscript, Technical University of Dresden.
25. Mare, R.D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15-32.
26. McHugh, M.C., & Frieze, I.H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 1-16.
27. Pratto, F., & Hegarty, P. (2000). The political psychology of reproductive strategies. Psychological Science, 11, 57-62.
28. Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Docments in Psychology, 4, 127 (Ms. No. 617).
29. United Nations Development Programme. (1995). Human development report 1995. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. United Nations Development Programme. (2000). Human development report 2000. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Wiedermau, M.W., & Allgeier, E.R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 23, 115-124.
32. Wood, W., & Eagly, A.H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.