Human Sexuality, Mate Preference

HumanSexuality, Mate Preference

HumanSexuality, Mate Preference

Oneprobable question that can be directed to an individual of any sexwho has ever imagined of falling in love or giving it in return is,“what is your perfect mate?” The notion of finding an idealpartner is substantially personal. That is because, just like thehuman behaviors and characters can change with time, so is thepossibility of variation in the perception of the identified mate.Many factors define how people choose their romantic partners.Individuals fall into two mate choice preference pools namelypositive assortative and negative assortative mating categories. Thisresearch paper utilizes five journals on mate choice to give anin-depth exposition of the factors regarding the two types of matechoice preferences mentioned above and how they affect one’sposition to select a partner.

MatePreference, Analysis

Leeet al. (2014) provided clear definitions and distinctions betweenpositive assortative mating and negative assortative mating. Hence,the researchers explained that in human sexuality, positiveassortative mating entails the attraction of partners with respect tothe personalities that are similar between them. Conversely, Lee etal. (2014) asserted that in negative assortative mating, theindividual mates are attracted to each other based on the uniquepersonality traits between them. The major theories that relate tothe two pools of mate preferences named above include GeneticSimilarity and the Evolutionary Economic Theories. Regarding theTheory of Genetic Similarity, Lee et al. (2014) argued that for twopeople to be attracted, they must have a genetic commonnessconcerning their phenotypes. Phenotype characters are physical andmay include qualities such as the eye color, skin pigmentation, andhair texture among others. The more the potential partners have twocomparing phenotypic traits, the higher the chances of them gettingattracted to one another (Lee et al., 2014). On the other hand, theEvolutionary Economic Theory examines the idea of genetic value, andeventually proposes that there occur certain enviable traits whichform the basis for selecting a perfect companion. Hence, those whounderstand themselves and what they stand for are likely to settledown as mates because they have closely comparable qualities. Intheir conclusion, Lee et al. (2014) posted that the standards whichshow how people perceive particular situations in their lives aresturdy psychology tools that permit easy evaluation and selection ofthe most ideal mates. Moreover, potential mates tend to select forindividuals who direct dominance towards other classes of the samesexes but remain kind and trustworthy to the mate being pursued.

Thework by Furnham (2009) provided a more comprehensive literature onmate selection based on personality. The researcher utilized theconcepts of the Big-Five personality traits to map out how peoplechoose who to settle with for the rest of their r lives. Thesepersonalities include openness, extroversion, neuroticism,consciousness, and agreeableness. Openness focuses on the abilitiesof the potential partner with respect to artistry, curiosity,eccentricity, and the imaginative capability one possesses. Besides,agreeableness entails a mate’s trust, generosity, sympathy,kindness, and sympathy as well as the flexibility to forgive. Also,consciousness relates to how well the mates in question areconcerning efficiency, responsibility, and reliability and theirlevel of organization. Conversely, extroversion includes such factorsas the partner’s energetic, assertive, active, outgoing, andtalkative capabilities. Finally, neuroticism covers a mate’s tense,touchy, and anxious qualities alongside other mental stability traits(Furnham, 2009). In what would be the simplest conclusion after asuccinct meta-analysis of literature related to the five traitsabove, Furnham (2009) concurred that some people select partners whopossess traits similar to theirs (i.e. positive assortative mating)while others prefer to have companions with contrasting personalitycharacteristics (i.e. negative assortative mating).

Interestingly,a practical follow-up research by Lukaszewski &amp Roney (2010) onthe topic of personality versus mate preference echoed the assertionsby Furnham (2009). In their survey which involved a study of theviews of potential or actual mates, the Lukaszewski &amp Roney(2010) found out that there was a correlation between the selectionof a partner and the five personality features. Consequently, theyrated the elements as vital tools for the choosing of a companion.Moreover, the results of the assessment validated that one group ofindividuals chose their mates based on how close the qualities theypossessed resembled. Essentially, that points back to the concept ofpositive assortative mating already pointed out by Lee et al. (2014).Conversely, the t-test results concerning mate selection based ondissimilar traits revealed that there was a significant difference inself and mate evaluations of the five personalities. In other words,some partners got attracted to one another as guided by thedichotomies they had in relation to the five factors. Again, thatconfirmed the earlier revelations by Lee et al. (2014) on negativeassortative mating.

Furthermore,Conroy-Beam &amp Buss (2016) examined whether there existed aconsiderable discrepancy between self and mate ratings concerning thefive elements of personality. Again, the finding showed that thefemales, compared to their peer men, were more neurotic. In tandemwith that, it was concluded that women are more particular when itcomes to personality companion choice. Notwithstanding, they are moreaware of the exact traits they want in a partner than men. Moreover,the women are less tentative than men in selecting ideal mates whohave personality characteristics similar to theirs. That is unlikemen, who are always on the move to pinpoint a pool of diversepersonality features continuously until they locate partners withwhom they are at ease. The research by Conroy-Beam &amp Buss (2016),while using the test models of Mate Preference IntegrationAlgorithms, also determined that couples who are newly weddedexpressed more fulfillment than those who have stayed in the marriagefor longer durations. In other words, mate selection predilectionfactors seem to degenerate over time, an indication that as peoplechoose partners, they must be well aware that the five element traitsthat attracted them (whether negative or positive assortative), areprone to change over time. Conroy-Beam &amp Buss (2016) furtherverified that the mate preferences regarding personality traits varywith respect to the point of behavioral traits. Hence, both sexeslike partners with very high degrees of trustworthiness and kindness.However, that is only so when the mates in question perceive abehavior directed other groups of individuals. On the other hand,mates have tangible predilection for companions with high dominancelevels directed towards other classes of the potential mate’s samesexes (Conroy-Beam &amp Buss, 2016).

Finally,in what would look like a summary of factors that affect mateselection in human sexuality, Dijkstra &amp Barelds (2008) did asystematic literature review and came up with excellent findings.First, it was established that sexual preference is different withinand across gender. These discrepancies are as a result of genetics,kin selection, and attractiveness. In terms of genetics, Dijkstra &ampBarelds (2008) reiterated that individuals are selected for oragainst based on the features they possess as a result of chromosomalactivities. Consequently, one may favor leaving a dwarf individualfor a tall companion, or a mentally retarded personality for agenius. Attractiveness relates to the phenotypic characters as wellas the personalities present in the potential companions. Some peoplechoose partners with comparable big-five elements (positiveassortative) while others like to have those with dissimilarqualities (negative assortative) (Dijkstra &amp Barelds, 2008). Onthe other hand, kin selection, it is theorized that some people endup without a mate because they spend most of their time taking careof the family offspring. Nevertheless, they sacrifice theirreproductive life and end up in what is today termed as homosexuals.Although there is no strong genetic tendency to support the claim, itis agreeable that people who incline their life to the familyenclosure are less likely to select partners of different sexesbecause they are not familiar with the five personality elements.Finally, sexual conflict


Fromthe above considerations, it is patent that mate selection in humansexuality is dependent on the phenotypic manifestation of geneticsand the big-five personality traits of openness, extroversion,neuroticism, consciousness, and agreeableness. Either way, peoplechoose mates who have comparable features and or characters (i.e.positive assortative mating) or those with completely differentpersonalities (i.e. negative assortative mating). All the fivejournals reviewed identified the factors above as essential toolsthat drive mate selection. The research paper, therefore,successfully fulfilled its purpose of determining the dynamics aroundthe choosing of a partner in human sexuality.


Conroy-Beam,D., &amp Buss, D. M. (2016). How Are Mate Preferences Linked withActual Mate Selection? Tests of Mate Preference IntegrationAlgorithms Using Computer Simulations and Actual Mating Couples.&nbspPloSone,&nbsp11(6),e0156078.

Dijkstra,P., &amp Barelds, D. P. (2008). Do people know what they want: Asimilar or complementary partner?.&nbspEvolutionaryPsychology,&nbsp6(4),147470490800600406.

Furnham,A. (2009). Sex differences in mate selection preferences.Personalityand individual differences,&nbsp47(4),262-267.

Lee,A. J., Dubbs, S. L., Von Hippel, W., Brooks, R. C., &amp Zietsch, B.P. (2014). A multivariate approach to human matepreferences.&nbspEvolutionand Human Behavior,&nbsp35(3),193-203.

Lukaszewski,A. W., &amp Roney, J. R. (2010). Kind toward whom? Mate preferencesfor personality traits are target specific.&nbspEvolutionand Human Behavior,&nbsp31(1),29-38.