Eine Studie behandelt die Frage, wie sehr sich die Partnervorstellungen zwischen den Geschlechtern unterscheiden:
Previous studies on sex-differentiated mate preferences have focused on univariate analyses. However, because mate selection is inherently multidimensional, a multivariate analysis more appropriately measures sex differences in mate preferences. We used the Mahalanobis distance (D) and logistic regression to investigate sex differences in mate preferences with data secured from participants residing in 37 cultures (n = 10,153). Sex differences are large in multivariate terms, yielding an overall D = 2.41, corresponding to overlap between the sexes of just 22.8%. Moreover, knowledge of mate preferences alone affords correct classification of sex with 92.2% accuracy. Finally, pattern-wise sex differences are negatively correlated with gender equality across cultures but are nonetheless cross-culturally robust. Discussion focuses on implications in evaluating the importance and magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences.
Der Grundgedanke hinter der Studie wird hier kurz zusammengefasst:
Evolutionary psychology predicts that men and women will tend to have consistently different mating strategies because of a simple fact: Women get pregnant and men do not. This fundamental asymmetry means men and women face different challenges in regards to reproductive fitness, the number of offspring produced by an individual.
Gestation and breastfeeding requires women to invest time and resources in her children, shortening her reproductive lifespan. “Consequently, in long-term mating, women more severely faced the adaptive problem of acquiring resources to produce and support offspring. Women are therefore predicted to greater prefer long-term, committed mates who possess resources and qualities linked to resource acquisition such as status, ambition, and slightly older age,” the researchers wrote.
Das ist soweit auch alles schon häufiger hier diskutiert worden und nichts neues.
Die Studie vergleicht auch, inwieweit sich Gleichberechtigung zwischen den Geschlechtern auf die Partnerwahl auswirkt und wie groß der Unterschied trotz aller Varianz zwischen den Kulturen in diesen jeweils verbleibt
Geschlechtsunterschiede in der Partnerwahl
Zu der Tabelle 1 heißt es:
Table 1 shows the correlation between each sex difference effect size and the GEM across cultures. Many sex differences were negatively correlated with gender empowerment, including preference for cooking ability, r(25) = −.46, p = .02; similar educational attainment, r(25) = −.52, p = .01; similar religion, r(25) = −.43, p = .01; age differences, r(25) = −.58, p = .001; and overall educational attainment, r(25) = −.50, p = .01. As such, the overall Mahalanobis D was also moderately negatively correlated with gender empowerment across cultures, r(25) = −.48, p = .01. This was true for both the Mahalanobis D based on sexually dimorphic variables, r(25) = −.51, p = .006; and the sexually monomorphic Mahalanobis D, r(25) = −.40, p = .04. As gender empowerment became increasingly equivalent across cultures, the difference between the sexes in their mate preferences decreased along several individual dimensions as well as in their overall patterns of mate preference.
The correlations between the GEM and sex differences were sometimes strong, implying that gender empowerment accounts for a large amount of the variance in mate preference sexual dimorphism. However, interpreting these correlations requires appreciating the extent of this cross cultural variance relative to the magnitude of sex differences across dimensions
Also mit mehr Gleichberechtigung werden die Unterschiede in der Wichtigkeit bestimmter Partnerpräferenzen größer oder kleiner. Wenn mehr Gleichberechtigung vorhanden ist, ist der Unterschied in der Partnerwahl zB bezüglich des Kriteriums „Kann kochen“ kleiner. Was verständlich ist, da man ja nicht unbedingt gleich heiratet, man häufig eh in den reicheren Ländern mehr außerhalb der Familie ist, zB in Kantinen und es insofern vermutlich sowohl den Männern unwichtiger und im Gegenzug den Frauen als Zeichen einer gewissen Modernität wichtiger ist. In Kulturen mit weniger Gleichberechtigung wird auch ein Altersunterschied wichtiger: ich vermute mal, er muss älter sein und sie ernähren können.
In der zweiten Tabelle wird dann geschaut, wie groß der Unterschied trotz aller Varianz war:
We calculated a difference-to-variability (DTV) ratio (i.e., a signal-to-noise ratio) for each of the 19 mate preference dimensions as well as for the overall mate preference complex. These ratios divided the absolute magnitude of each sex difference ignoring culture by the standard deviation in the sex difference across cultures. A large DTV ratio indicates that the magnitude of the sex difference remains large regardless of its cross-cultural variability; a small DTV ratio indicates the sex difference’s cross-cultural variability is much larger than its actual magnitude. Table 2 shows the ratio for each sex difference. Several preference dimensions that were not predicted to be sex differentiated showed very small DTV ratios: health (DTV = .32), refined (DTV = .49), and political views (DTV = .55). Four of the five variables originally predicted to be sex differentiated were among the six highest DTV ratios: age difference (DTV = 3.18), physical attractiveness (DTV = 2.21), good financial prospects
(DTV = 1.82), and ambition (DTV = 1.43). Chastity was more variable across cultures (DTV = .89).The Mahalanobis D between the sexes was highly stable (DTV = 2.93). That is, the magnitude of the sex difference in the overall pattern of mate preference was nearly 3 times the variability in that sex difference across cultures. Splitting the Mahalanobis D into the sexually monomorphic and sexually dimorphic versions reveals that this stability is due largely to the five mate preference dimensions predicted to be sexually dimorphic. The sexually dimorphic preference Mahalanobis D had a DTV ratio of DTV = 3.60; for just the preference variables predicted to be sexually dimorphic, the sex difference in the overall pattern of mate preferences was more than 3½ times the variability in that difference across cultures. Conversely, the Mahalanobis D for the sexually monomorphic preferences had a DTV ratio of just DTV = 1.37, indicating that the pattern of these preferences was barely more sexually dimorphic than it was cross-culturally variable
In der Tabelle zeigt sich also, dass bestimmte Variablen unabhängig von der jeweiligen Kultur und damit auch der Gleichberechtigung in dieser hohe Unterschiede aufweisen. Das sind beispielsweise „gutes Einkommen“ (hier dürften Frauen interessierter sein) und „gutes Aussehen“ (da dürften Männer höhere Anforderungen zeigen. Die Kriterien, bei denen man nach den evolutionären Theorien davon ausgegangen war, dass sie hohe Unterschiede ergeben würden und sich zwischen den Geschlechtern unterscheiden würden, zeigten auch tatsächliche hohe Unterschiede über alle Kulturen.
Die Daten durch die Veränderung bei mehr Gleichberechtigung werden auch noch einmal hier dargestellt:
Geschlechterunterschiede Partnerwahl Gleichberechtigung
Da sieht man, dass die Unterschiede zwar kleiner bleiben, aber immer noch groß bleiben (D=1,83), selbst wenn man absolute Gleichberechtigung zwischen den Geschlechtern annimmt.
Aus der Besprechung:
The results of our analyses of mate preferences, with theoretically appropriate multivariate statistics, suggest a new appraisal of sexual dimorphism in human mate preferences. Sex differences are large by any standard when assessing the pattern of mate preferences rather than along individual
dimensions of mate selection. At 2.41, the Mahalanobis D between the sexes for all mate preference variables is more than 8 times larger than typical effect sizes in psychological studies (Funder & Ozer, 1983; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2003).(…)
Knowledge of a person’s mate preferences alone allows prediction of that person’s sex with 92% accuracy, a further testament to the sex-differentiated nature of human mate selection psychology. These differences remain large when analyzing just those preference variables originally predicted to be sex differentiated on the basis of evolutionary hypotheses (Buss, 1989)—D = 2.28 and predictive accuracy = 92.4%. The large sex differences in mate selection psychology are thus driven specifically by those dimensions predicted to be sex differentiated on the basis of evolutionary theory.
Finally, sex differences in the overall pattern of mate preference are linked to equality in gender empowerment across cultures. Nonetheless, the cross-cultural variability explained by GEM is dwarfed by the magnitude of the sex difference itself. In fact, if we extrapolate our regression equations to a hypothetical society with perfect gender equality, then the overall pattern of sex differences in mate preference would remain large. Although predictions of unobserved data should be interpreted cautiously, this analysis indicates that gender empowerment equality would need to have complex, nonlinear effects on mate preferences—effects not proposed in the extant literature nor observed in our data—to serve as an explanation of observed sexual dimorphism. Combined with evidence that some sex differences increase with increasing gender equality (see Schmitt, 2014, for a review), this suggests that, rather than being an origin of sexual dimorphism in mate preferences, gender equality appears to be just one of many inputs to sexually dimorphic mating adaptations.
Das macht deutlich, dass die Unterschiede sehr groß sind und sehr groß bleiben. Es macht auch deutlich, dass die evolutionären Theorien da durchaus zuverlässige Vorhersagen erzeugen, während rein soziale Theorien diese Faktoren aus meiner Sicht nicht wirklich erfassen können. Das wird in der Studie auch noch einmal an einer Grafik verdeutlicht:
Geschlechterunterschiede im Vergleich
Der Unterschied in der Partnerwahl ist also deutlich größer als etwa der Größenunterschied zwischen Mann und Frau, er bewegt sich etwa in der Größe des Oberkörperkraftunterschiedes. Was auch verständlich macht, warum es in dem Bereich so viel Unverständnis gibt. Frauen nehmen an, dass Männer Schweine sind und Männer verstehen nicht, was Frauen nun eigentlich wollen.
Alles Evolution 