Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Foundations of Evolution
- Part II Middle-Level Theories
- 7 Parental Investment Theory
- 8 Parent–Offspring Conflict
- 9 Theory and Evidence for Reciprocal Altruism
- 10 Life History Theory and Mating Strategies
- 11 Sperm Competition Theory
- 12 Sexual Conflict Theory
- 13 Cross-Species Comparisons
- 14 Cross-Cultural Methods in Sexual Psychology
- 15 Behavioral Genetics
- 16 Sex Differences and Sex Similarities
- 17 Individual Differences in Sexual Psychology
- 18 Experimental Methods in Sexual Psychology
- Index
- References
14 - Cross-Cultural Methods in Sexual Psychology
from Part II - Middle-Level Theories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Foundations of Evolution
- Part II Middle-Level Theories
- 7 Parental Investment Theory
- 8 Parent–Offspring Conflict
- 9 Theory and Evidence for Reciprocal Altruism
- 10 Life History Theory and Mating Strategies
- 11 Sperm Competition Theory
- 12 Sexual Conflict Theory
- 13 Cross-Species Comparisons
- 14 Cross-Cultural Methods in Sexual Psychology
- 15 Behavioral Genetics
- 16 Sex Differences and Sex Similarities
- 17 Individual Differences in Sexual Psychology
- 18 Experimental Methods in Sexual Psychology
- Index
- References
Summary
Cross-cultural research methods are widely used in evolutionary sexual psychology research. These methods are applied to reveal both human universals and culture-specific patterns. In this chapter I discuss the benefits and limitations of various methods, including surveys with forced-choice and free-choice response scales, ratings based on the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, and the use of pictorial, video, and audio stimuli. Methodological problems, ranging from the conceptual and operational definitions of a particular trait in each culture or country to investigating and establishing equivalency of scales and ratings across cultures or countries are presented. Evolutionary perspectives have addressed love, long-term partner choice, marital satisfaction, jealousy, and attractiveness in cross-cultural studies. Special attention has been given to the problems of validation of instruments in WEIRD and non-WEIRD societies, both large-scale and small-scale societies. For illustrative purposes, I review Sternberg’s Triangular Love Scale and summarize recent cross-cultural research conducted in Western and non-Western, modern and traditional societies. The Marriage and Relationships Questionnaire and the Ideal Mate Preferences Scale have been used in cross-cultural work, and the benefits and limitations of these instruments for evolutionary sexual psychology are reviewed. Universal sex differences in ideal mate preferences obtained in cross-cultural survey research have been illustrated by various statistical procedures. The use and utility of stimuli methods in cross-cultural research, especially in the case of non-WEIRD, small-scale societies, has been demonstrated. Substitution of real body images by silhouettes may help to avoid unnecessary discomfort of respondents related to variations in cultural norms of body presentation. I discuss adjustments of stimuli images developed for Western cultures for use in non-Western cultures. Examples of such adjustments of stimuli images are provided (e.g., body color of silhouettes are adjusted to more closely match the local population). I conclude that effective cross-cultural methods today are variable and not limited to questionnaires and interviews. Many such methods are appropriate for evolutionary studies of sexual selection, to reveal universal sex differences in sexual strategies, particularly those related to reproductive success, partner choice, and parental uncertainty.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Berry, J. W. (1996). On the unity of the field: Variations and communalities in understanding human behavior in cultural context. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 30, 89–98.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Best, D., & Williams, J. (1997). Social behavior and applications; sex, gender, and culture. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3, 163–212.Google Scholar
Blake, K. R., Fourati, M., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). Who suppresses female sexuality? An examination of support for Islamic veiling in a secular Muslim democracy as a function of sex and offspring sex. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 632–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2003a). Sexual strategies: A journey into controversy. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 217–224.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2003b). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating, rev. ed. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2017). Sexual conflict in human mating. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–256.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & LeBlanc, G. J. (2000). Number of children desired and preferred spousal age difference: Context‐specific mate preference patterns across 37 cultures. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butovskaya, M. L., Windhager, S., Karelin, D., Mezentseva, A., Schaefer, K., & Fink, B. (2018). Associations of physical strength with facial shape in an African pastoralist society, the Maasai of Northern Tanzania. PLoS One, 13(5), e0197738.Google Scholar
Chang, L., Wang, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Chinese mate preferences: Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 678–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, V., Greeff, J. M., Stephen, I. D., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS One, 9(7), e99629.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Roney, J. R., Lukaszewski, A. W., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., … Alm, C. (2019). Assortative mating and the evolution of desirability covariation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(5), 479–491.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 277(1692), 2405–2410.Google Scholar
Dillon, L. M., Nowak, N., Weisfeld, G. E., Weisfeld, C. C., Shattuck, K. S., Imamoğlu, O. E., … Shen, J. (2015). Sources of marital conflict in five cultures. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobrowolska, M., Groyecka-Bernard, A., Sorokowski, P., Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Ahmadi, K., … Błażejewska, M. (2020). Global perspective on marital satisfaction. Sustainability, 12(21), 8817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2017). Sex differences in jealousy: A 25-year retrospective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 259–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, B. (1993). How do I love thee? Let me consult my prototype. In Duck, S. (Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 87–120). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Feybesse, C., & Hatfield, E. (2019). Passionate love. In Sternberg, R. J. & Sternberg, K. (Eds.), The new psychology of love, 2nd ed. (pp. 183–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Andre, S., Mines, J. S., Weege, B., Shackelford, T. K., & Butovskaya, M. (2016a). Sex difference in attractiveness perceptions of strong and weak male walkers. American Journal of Human Biology 28, 913–917.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Butovskaya, M. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2019). Assessment of physical strength from gait: Data from the Maasai of Tanzania. Biology Letters, 15(3), 20180803.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Butovskaya, M., Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., & Matts, P. J. (2017a). Visual perception of British Women’s skin color distribution in two nonindustrialized societies, the Maasai and the Tsimane. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(3), 1474704917718957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fink, B., Hufschmidt, C., Hirn, T., Will, S., McKelvey, G., & Lankhof, J. (2016b). Age, health and attractiveness perception of virtual (rendered) human hair. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1893.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Neave, N., Brewer, G., & Pawlowski, B. (2007). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS): Further evidence for an adjustment in relation to own height. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(8), 2249–2257.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Wübker, M., Ostner, J., Butovskaya, M. L., Mezentseva, A., Muñoz-Reyes, J. A., … Shackelford, T. K. (2017b). Cross-cultural investigation of male gait perception in relation to physical strength and speed. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1427.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frejka, T., & Westoff, C. F. (2008). Religion, religiousness and fertility in the US and in Europe. European Journal of Population, 24, 5–31.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … Aycan, Z. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.Google Scholar
Groyecka, A., Żelaźniewicz, A., Misiak, M., Karwowski, M., & Sorokowski, P. (2017). Breast shape (ptosis) as a marker of a woman’s breast attractiveness and age: Evidence from Poland and Papua. American Journal of Human Biology, 29(4), e22981.Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2010). Culture, attachment style, and romantic relationships. In Erdman, P. & Ng, K.-M. (Eds.), Attachment: Expanding the cultural connections (pp. 227–242). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1998). The passionate love scale. In Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., Bauserman, R., Schreer, G., & Davis, S. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 449–451). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The love attitudes scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 147–159.Google Scholar
Hoelter, L. F., Axinn, W. G., & Ghimire, D. J. (2004). Social change, premarital nonfamily experiences, and marital dynamics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1131–1151.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jones, D., Brace, C. L., Jankowiak, W., Laland, K. N., Musselman, L. E., Langlois, J. H., … Symons, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 36(5), 723–748.Google Scholar
Kagitgibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In Berry, J. W., Segall, M. H., & Kagitibasi, C. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Social behavior and applications (Vol. 3, pp. 1–49). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Karandashev, V. (2019). Cross-cultural perspectives on the experience and expression of love. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Levenson, R. W., Soto, J., & Pole, N. (2007). Emotion, biology, and culture. In Kitayama, S. & Cohen, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 780–796). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, H. (2001). Boas, Darwin, science, and anthropology. Current Anthropology, 42(3), 381–394.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short‐term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.Google Scholar
Lonner, W. J. (2000). On the growth and continuing importance of cross-cultural psychology. Eye on Psi Chi, 4(3), 22–26.Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2010). Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, F., Apicella, C., & Reed, D. (2005). Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 6(26), 458–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matts, P. J., & Fink, B. (2010). Chronic sun damage and the perception of age, health and attractiveness. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 9(4), 421–431.Google Scholar
Matts, P. J., Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Burquest, M. (2007). Colour homogeneity and visual perception of age, health and attractiveness of female facial skin. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 57, 977–984.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution. In Crawford, C. & Krebs, D. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87–129). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Mir, M. S., Wani, M. A., & Sankar, R. (2016). Marital adjustment among love marriage and arranged marriage couples. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(3), 51–56.Google Scholar
Moon, J. W. (2021). Why are world religions so concerned with sexual behavior? Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8, 329–369.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, B. (2003). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, 709–712.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A. (2020). Sex difference on the importance of veiling: A cross-cultural investigation. Cross-Cultural Research, 54, 486–501.Google Scholar
Pelto, P. J. (1968). The differences between “tight” and “loose” societies. Trans-action, 5(5), 37–40.Google Scholar
Phelps, S. M., Rand, A. D., & Ryan, M. J. (2006). A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. The American Naturalist, 167, 28–42.Google Scholar
Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. R. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness, symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cultural Research, 47(2), 162–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokop, P. (2020). High heels enhance perceived sexual attractiveness, leg length and women’s mate-guarding. Current Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00832-yGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. (1993). Marriage and relationship questionnaire: MARQ handbook. Kent: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Sanford, K. (2007). The couples emotion rating form: Psychometric properties and theoretical associations. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 411–421.Google Scholar
Saroglou, V. (2019). Religion and related morality across cultures. In Matsumoto, D. & Hwang, H. C. (Eds.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 724–785). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scelza, B. A., Prall, S. P., Blumenfield, T., Crittenden, A. N., Gurven, M., Kline, M., … Shenk, M. K. (2020). Patterns of paternal investment predict cross-cultural variation in jealous response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2008). Attachment matters: Patterns of romantic attachment across gender, geography, and cultural forms. In Forgas, J. P. & Fitness, J. (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 75–100). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., … Zupaneie, A. (2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and of other pancultural constructs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 367–402.Google Scholar
Schumm, W. R., and Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Marital quality over the marital career: Alternative explanations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 165–168.Google Scholar
Schumm, W. R., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L., & Grigsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychology Reports, 53, 567–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schützwohl, A. (2007). Decision strategies in continuous ratings of jealousy feelings elicited by sexual and emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(4), 815–828.Google Scholar
Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447–466.Google Scholar
Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1101.Google Scholar
Shachar, R. (1991). His and her marital satisfaction: The double standard. Sex Roles, 25(7–8), 451–467.Google Scholar
Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation. In Clark, M. S. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 175–212). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Shek, D. T., and Tsang, S. K. (1993). The Chinese version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: Some psychometric and normative data. International Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 205–214.Google Scholar
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293.Google Scholar
Slone, D. J. (2008). The attraction of religion: A sexual selectionist account. In Bulbulia, J., Sosis, R., Harris, E., Genet, R., Genet, C., & Wyman, K. (Eds.), The evolution of religion: Studies, theories, and critiques (pp. 181–187). Santa Margarita, CA: Collins Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., & Butovskaya, M. L. (2012). Height preferences in humans may not be universal: Evidence from the Datoga people of Tanzania. Body Image, 9(4), 510–516.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., & Pawlowski, B. (2008). Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(2), 86–91.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Randall, A. K., Groyecka, A., Frackowiak, T., Cantarero, K., Hilpert, P., … Bettache, K. (2017a). Marital satisfaction, sex, age, marriage duration, religion, number of children, economic status, education, and collectivistic values: Data from 33 countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1199.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Karwowski, M., Groyecka, A., Wojciszke, B., & Pawłowski, B. (2017b) Love influences reproductive success in humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1922.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Stulp, G., Huanca, T., & Fink, B. (2015). Body height preferences and actual dimorphism in stature between partners in two non-Western societies (Hadza and Tsimane’). Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 455–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Karwowski, M., Groyecka, A., Aavik, T., Akello, G., … Atama, C. S. (2021). Universality of the triangular theory of love: Adaptation and psychometric properties of the triangular love scale in 25 countries, Journal of Sex Research, 58(1), 106–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorokowski, P., Szmajke, A., Sorokowska, A., Borg Cunen, M., Fabrykant, M., Zarafshani, K., … Cetinkaya, H. (2011). Attractiveness of leg length: Report from 27 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, A. L., Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Mate preferences in Brazil: Evolved desires and cultural evolution over three decades. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, I. D., Scott, I. M., Coetzee, V., Pound, N., Perrett, D. I., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2012). Cross-cultural effects of color, but not morphological masculinity, on perceived attractiveness of men’s faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(4), 260–267.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–335.Google Scholar
Stewart‐Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2017). Sexual history and present attractiveness: People want a mate with a bit of a past, but not too much. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1097–1105.Google Scholar
Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D., & Verhulst, S. (2013). Are human mating preferences with respect to height reflected in actual pairings? PLoS One, 8, e54186.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Einon, D., & Furnham, A. (2006). The leg-to-body ratio as a human aesthetic criterion. Body Image, 3(4), 317–323.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Einon, D., & Furnham, A. (2007). Cultural significance of leg‐to‐body ratio preferences? Evidence from Britain and rural Malaysia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4), 265–269.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Rozmus-Wrzesinska, M., Voracek, M., Haubner, T., Danel, D., Pawłowski, B., … Shostak, A. (2008). The influence of skin tone, body weight, and hair colour on perceptions of women’s attractiveness and health: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 321–341.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Jonason, P. K., Blackburn, J. D., Kennair, L. E. O., Lowe, R., Malouff, J., … Li, N. P. (2020). Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross‐cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 606–620.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 574–583.Google Scholar
Valentova, J. V., Varella, M. A. C., Havlíček, J., & Kleisner, K. (2017). Positive association between vocal and facial attractiveness in women but not in men: A cross-cultural study. Behavioural Processes, 135, 95–100.Google Scholar
Van Slyke, J. A., & Szocik, K. (2020). Sexual selection and religion: Can the evolution of religion be explained in terms of mating strategies? Archives of Psychology and Religion, 42(1), 123–141.Google Scholar
Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., … Amjad, N. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423.Google Scholar
Weisfeld, C. C., Dillon, L. M., Nowak, N. T., Mims, K. R., Weisfeld, G. E., Imamoğlu, E. O., … Shen, J. (2011a). Sex differences and similarities in married couples: Patterns across and within cultures. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1165–1172.Google Scholar
Weisfeld, G. E., Nowak, N. T., Lucas, T., Weisfeld, C. C., Imamoğlu, E. O., Butovskaya, M., … Parkhill, M. R. (2011b). Do women seek humorousness in men because it signals intelligence? A cross-cultural test. Humor, 24, 435–462.Google Scholar
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. (2008). Religious affiliation, religiosity, and male and female fertility. Demographic Research, 18, 233–262.Google Scholar