A Study of Changing Trends in Potential Life-Partner Selection
Marriage is an important institution that upholds society’s values. Thus an important decision for any adult is to select appropriate life partner. The definition of appropriateness is largely influenced by cultural norms and values. This research was conducted to study trends in potential mate preference characteristics of the Pakistani population. To attain the aforementioned objective, an archival research was conducted. Data was collected from Sunday matrimonial sections of two most widely read newspapers (Daily Jung and Daily Dawn). Entire data was drawn for 3 decades (i.e., 1980 – 2009). The requirements for to-be bride and to-be grooms were noted. Result showed that in both newspapers, Physical attractiveness in to-be brides was the top sought feature in three decades, whereas for to-be grooms, working or being educated were the most required traits. It shows that most of the requirements remained same, still few changes were noted within the three decades.
2. Berry, D., & Miller, K. (2001). When boy meets girl: Attractiveness and the five-factor model in opposite-sex interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 62-77.
3. Botwin, M.D., Buss, D.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (1997). Personality and Mate Preferences: Five Factors In Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107-136.
4. Bryan, A.D., Webster, G.D., & Mahaffey, A.L. (2011). The big, the rich, and the powerful: physical, financial, and social dimensions of dominance in mating and attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 365–382.
5. Buss , D.M. & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
6. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49
7. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.
8. Buss, D., Shackelford, T., Kirkpatrick, L., and Larson, R. (2001). A Half- Century of Mate Preferences: the cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63 (2), 491-504
9. Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D. and Kenrick, D. T. (2002), Age and Gender Differences in Mate Selection Criteria for Various Involvement Levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00018
10. Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi- experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
11. Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P. & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72
12. Darby, B. W., & Jeffers, D. (1988). The effects of defendant and juror attractiveness on simulated courtroom decisions. Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 39-50.
13. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290
14. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences: Evolution versus social structure. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
15. Etcoff, N., Orbach, S., Scott, J., & D’Agostino, H. (2004). The Real Truth About Beauty: A Global Report.
16. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S.S., Kamenica, E., Simonson, I., 2006. Gender differences in mate selection: evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 121, 673–697.
17. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.
18. French, M.T., Popovici, I., Robins, P.K., & Homer, J.F. (2014). Personality traits, cohabitation and marriage. Social Science Research, 45, 184–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.01.002
19. Goodwin, R., & Tang, D. (1991). Preferences for friends and close relationship partners: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 579–581.
20. Haneef, M., Alvi, A.K., Ali, F. (2014). Spouse Selection Criteria : A Case Study Of University Students. Science International, 26(5), 2509-2513,
21. Hensley, W. E. (1994). Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence, 29, 469–474.
22. Hill, R. (1945). Campus Values in Mate Selection. Journal of Home Economics. Nov. pp. 554-558
23. Hitsch, G.J., Hortacsu, A., Ariely, D., 2010. What makes you click? – Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics. 8, 393–427
24. Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories: Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 194-200.
25. Hoyt, Les and John Hudson (1981). Personal Characteristics Important in Mate Preference Among College Students. Social Behavior and Personality, 9 (1), 93-96.
26. Hudson, J.W. & Henze , L.F. (1969) Campus value in mate selection: A replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31 (Nov), 772-75
27. Ibrahim, F., Ohnishi, H., & Sandhu, D. S. (1997). Asian American identity development: a culture specific model for South Asian Americans. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25, 34-50
28. Kamble, S., Shackelford, T. K., Pham, M., & Buss, D. M. (2014). Indian mate preferences: Continuity, sex differences, and cultural change across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 150-155
29. Kasser, T. & Sharma, Y.S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational quality, and females’ preference for resource acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374-377.
30. Kenrick, D. T. (1994). Evolutionary social psychology: From sexual selection to social cognition. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Vol. 26 (pp. 75-121). San Diego: Academic Press
31. Khoynezhad, G., Rajaei, A. R., & Sarvarazemy, A. (2012). Basic Religious Beliefs and Personality Traits. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 7(2), 82–86.
32. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
33. McGinnis, R. (1959). Campus Values in Mate Selection: a repeat study. Social Forces. May, pp. 368-373
34. O’Boyle, T., & Dawson, J. (2012). College Campus Mate Selection: A Quasi-Replication. American International Journal of Social Science, 1(2), 1 – 11.
35. Rhodes, G., (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226
36. Shackelford, T.K., Schmitt, D.P., & Buss, D.M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.
37. Shipman, A. C., (2010). Mate Selection in Modern India. Doctoral Dissertations.
38. Shoemake, E.G. (2007). Human mate selection theory: An integrated evolutionary and social approach. Journal of Scientific Psychology, 35-41.
39. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.
40. Tariq, I. I., Hasan, S. S., & Ajmal, M. A. (2013). Cognitive Schemas of an Ideal Spouse among Young Adults. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11(2), 14-21.
41. Todosijević B., Ljubinković S., Arančić A., (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 116-126.
42. Trivers, R., (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp.136–179
43. Winegard, B. M., Winegard, B., Geary, D, C. (2013). If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It: Humans Flaunt Attractive Partners to Enhance Their Status and Desirability. PloS ONE, 8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072000
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.