Mate Preference, Income, and Evolutionary Psychology

While women might prefer a male who earns more money than them, both men and women seek partners with similar incomes as them, contra stated preferences.

In the realm of online dating discourse, especially among red-pill and black commentators, it is common for assertions to circulate suggesting that women prioritize partners with higher incomes, while men are perceived as being less concerned about their potential partner's earnings. These differences are typically taken to be due to evolutionary pressures that impact female nature under the guise of evolutionary psychology. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that such claims often oversimplify the nuanced dynamics at play. Data-driven insights provide a more nuanced perspective than certain evolutionary viewpoints may suggest, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between gender and preferences in the realm of income-based mate selection.

---

Frequently, when exploring the connection between gender and preferences for income in mate selection, evolutionary psychologists posit that women exhibit a heightened preference for a mate's income due to its signaling ability to provide for the woman and potential offspring (Buss, 1989; Palmhill and Thorner, 2005: 45-47). However, such discussions often lack essential contextual nuances, potentially leading individuals to interpret this information as a broad generalization, suggesting that, overall, women prioritize a partner with financial resources more than men do and that this preference translates to real-world impacts.

First, it’s been argued that the sex ratio in the area impacts mate preferences (Larsen, 2023). Sex ratios might lead to competition for getting mates, mate value might increase or decrease depending on the sex ratio, and it might lead to intrasexual competition. These factors would come together under the influence of sex ratios to impact mate preference — and in the context of this article, financial prospects.

However, such research has been inconsistent in terms of the effects found and inconsistent with the view that women, but not men, prefer a partner with higher financial prospects than them. Stone, Shackleford, and Buss (2008) found a negative relationship between the development index and mate preferences, but the effect was statistically insignificant. While the direction was where it was expected, both men and women in areas with lower development index scores preferred a mate with a higher income prospect than them.

Similarly, Walter et al. (2021) remark that as the sex ratio increases, women tend to prefer a mate with more resources while men tend to decrease this preference.

However, much like the prior study, Walter et al.’s effects were not significantly different from zero, but the difference moved in the expected direction — though the effects seem to be rather small and not as practically important as some commentators online make it out to be. Munro et al., which was cited below, did not find a significant effect between sex ratio and preference for resource holding among women.

Second, other studies have demonstrated the preference for women to tend to prefer a mate with higher earning prospects than men do (Gustavsson, Johnson, and Uller, 2008), and these preferences fail to go away when the woman is economically dependent (Wiederman and Allgeier, 1992). At least, this is the simplistic take that people like Palmhill and Thorner would have their readers believe (see Palmhill and Thorner: 45). When describing, for example, Wiederman and Allegier’s paper and female preference for economic prospects, the authors note:

“In studies conducted by David Buss (1985, 1987, 1989), women from all over the world were found to use wealth, status, and earning potential as major criteria in mate preference, and to value those attributes in mates more than men did. [Emphasis added.] Wiederman and Allgeier (1992) and Townsend (1998) found that this preference not only fails to disappear among economically self-dependent women; it increases. Hence, this preference is not a product of economic dependence on males, as feminist theory might suggest.”

When examining the evidence, however, we tend to see a lack of sex differences in preference for a higher earning potential in a mate when other variables are adjusted, contra Palmhill and Thorner.

Indeed, previous studies, such as those conducted by Gustavsson and colleagues, have often overlooked the crucial factor of adjusting for individual income. As argued by Anderson and Klofstad (2012), considering personal income in these analyses becomes paramount, aligning with the concept of assortative mating, wherein individuals generally tend to choose partners with similar demographic and physical traits. The presence of assortative mating has been demonstrated both in online dating settings (Neyt, Baert, and Vandenbuckle, 2020; Razini, and Rosenbaum, Tybur, 2022; Huber and Malhotra, 2016; Lee, 2015) and in real-world scenarios (Stulp et al., 2016; Sunde et al., 2023). ¹ Consequently, one's expressed preferences, such as a desire for a partner with higher earning prospects, may not necessarily align with the actual choices made. For instance, an individual expressing a preference for a partner earning 100k+ might ultimately select a partner with a more comparable income level. This underscores the importance of considering assortative mating in understanding the complexities of mate selection dynamics.

Aligning with the evolutionary, RP/ BP stance that women prefer a partner with higher income earnings than them, Anderson and Klofstad examined data from a nationally representative sample of online dating app users and found that women exhibited a higher propensity for resource-seeking behavior, indicating a greater likelihood of seeking partners with higher incomes than their own. Women, on average, tended to prefer a mate with an income between 50.1k to 70k, while men sought a mate with an income between 35k to 50k. The research also identified a positive relationship between the zip code (utilized as a proxy for resource pressure) and resource-seeking tendencies, a trend observed among both men and women.

However, upon adjusting for personal income, the study revealed a noteworthy finding: the relationship between one's zip code and resource-seeking behavior dissipated. In essence, once personal income was factored into the equation, no discernible link existed between the zip code (a proxy for resource pressure) and the inclination to seek a partner with a higher income. This led to the conclusion that, when accounting for personal income, individuals of both sexes tend to seek mates with a similar income level — a pattern consistent with expectations under assortative mating. As the authors noted, “our data are biased to confirm the environmental resource pressure hypothesis (McGraw 2002), and yet they do not.”

Moreover, the attraction in a partner may not be solely contingent upon the possession of wealth itself. Contrary to assumptions that being affluent is the primary draw for potential partners, empirical examinations reveal a more nuanced reality. Individuals not only tend to seek mates with a similar income level, irrespective of their personal preferences in earning prospects, but they also express a preference for a potential partner who has earned their wealth independently and through honest means. This holds for both men and women in the context of seeking a long-term partner, and it extends to a preference for wealth acquired through personal efforts rather than through means such as inheritance or embezzlement (Jonason, Li, and Madson, 2012).

Contra Thornhill and Palmer’s assertion that “[women] value those attributes [earning potential] in mates more than men did”, an experimental study by Marzoli et al. (2013), they found no sex differences in ratings regarding different traits among potential partners. We should expect women to place more weight on wealth than men, but the lack of sex differences indicates this not to be the case.

Interestingly, the researchers manipulated the hypothetical scenario participants were in to see if that would change the importance attached to different traits, depending on the environment. Contrary to evolutionary assumptions that women will place a greater emphasis on wealth in a scenario about poverty, they found that men, not women, placed a greater emphasis on wealth in a mate if they were in a poverty scenario.

As was remarked in the paper when describing a trait x scenario x gender interaction in the poverty scenario, “men assigned more points to wealth in the poverty scenario than in all other scenarios.”

Of special interest are Wiederman and Allgeier (1992, ibid) and Townsend (1998), showing economically independent women to still prefer a mate with higher earning prospects. In Wiederman and Allgeier’s paper that looked at both a college sample and a community sample, the former showed a positive, albeit weak, correlation between a woman’s income and the importance ascribed to good financial prospects (r = 0.17, p = 0.01) and the latter had women place more value on good financial prospects than men did (Scale: 1-7; male M = 4.65, female M = 3.79). For men, there was no relationship between one’s income and the importance ascribed to good financial prospects.

Such research still succumbs to assortative mating. While there may be a correlation between a woman’s income and the importance ascribed to good financial prospects, this could still align with individuals with higher incomes than other people seeking other individuals in other similar income ranges, as shown by Anderson and Klofstad.

Townsend (1998) had participants rate photos of models shown with different conditions being manipulated. Some models had high ambition and income and others had low ambition and income. As was said in the paper, “Most of the women, however, were willing to date these models, and their SOI [Sociosexual Orientation Inventory] scores were not associated with their willingness to date.” However, SOI did affect their willingness to have sex but not go on a date. In contrast, men were willing to date and have sex with any of the women in the different manipulation conditions.

This aligns with a more recent study showing sexuality impacts mate preferences for earning prospects. ² Individuals who score lower on asexuality are more likely to put greater importance on earning prospects in a mate than those higher in asexuality, with this effect being present for men but not women (Scheller et al., 2023).

When Townsend and Scheller et al. are analyzed in conjunction, it does seem to indicate that men may be less selective than women when choosing a mate, especially since in the context of financial prospects the slope stays consistent. This aligns with the evolutionary perspective espoused by some, and the concept of “female nature” for those in RP/ BP circles.

Such evidence, however, does not imply anything negative about female nature, especially since both men and women become “picky” ³ with the partners they seek when they are higher in resources, a cue for mate value (Edluand and Sagarin, 2010). Even when women start approaching men, like in some speed dating scenarios, men become picky with whom they approach when women are allowed to approach (Finkel and Eastwick, 2009). Simply being average or above average on different traits, like status and resources, is enough to make someone be considered a potential partner (Li et al., 2002), so tales of needing insanely high income to attract a mate seem to be hyperbole.

Criticisms of young women’s preference for a partner’s income, which can be found online through reaction and commentary content (ex. here, here), should not be taken so seriously, especially given the empirical evidence cited above. While some young women may prefer a man who earns more money than them, this may not bear out in the real world and online where assortative mating takes place. Furthermore, age is the best predictor for resource-holding preference. In other words, being younger better predicts more emphasis on resource-holding (Munro et al. 2014).

So, we shouldn’t be too hard on what young women prefer given assortative mating and the fact that it might be ignorance due to age. Some studies, like Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) might argue that such decreases in preferences might be due to a woman’s aging decreasing her mate value, something RP/ BP commentators typically call “the wall”. However, I would argue that a better explanation might be that the preference changes might be due to age, but the stated preference itself does not matter due to assortative mating.

It’s also questionable if large correlational studies on mate preference are capturing changes in modern relationship dynamics, especially in the case of resource acquisition. As Boxer, Noonan, and Whelan (2013) discuss, the rise in female economic and social power has led to young couples choosing relationships based on egalitarian values rather than traditional ones that place the male as the breadwinner. This should translate to couples seeking individuals who have good earning prospects, which falls in line with assortative mating. Interestingly, Boxer, Noonan, and Whelan also argue that prior measures of mate preference have been invalid as they did not include many traits. Once this is done people are asked to rank the importance of these traits in a potential partner. Again, contra Palmhill and Thorner,

”Women are thought to place greater value on mates with high resource potential and status compared to men; however, we find no significant difference in the frequency with which men and women indicated desiring these qualities in a mate (χ2 = 1.38, n.s.).”

Thus, changing times may have led to women and men equally placing similar value on earning potential. Combine this with the fact that assortative mating occurs in issues like this, and we find that the importance of it does not differ by gender and that the stated preference does not align much with actual mate choice, especially since the relationship between earning prospects and romantic evaluations are weak (r = 0.10 [Eastwick et al. 2014]).

Such evidence does not strongly support the RP/ BP simplistic perspective, and evolutionary psychologists have not done a good job, in my opinion, displaying this evidence that adds more nuance. Because of this, I fear that the simplistic claims often repeated in evolutionary psychology have led those who argue about female-income mate preferences that this is due to “female nature”, which implies a largely genetic perspective. These people might think that female preferences for earning potential are a result of evolution and are consistent around the world. Contrary to some claims that mate preferences are largely due to evolution (e.g., Buss and Wood, 1999), it’s important to remember that such preferences don’t strictly follow an evolutionary outline and are also culture-specific (Shackelford, Schmitt, and Buss, 2005; Alice and Wendy, 1999) and are affected by the measurement being used.

---

In conclusion, such evidence casts doubt on the simplistic claims made by some evolutionary psychologists and RP/ BP commentators online, especially those in the contemporary dating discourse. While women might prefer someone with higher earning potential, people generally choose partners with incomes similar to their own under assortative mating. Further variables impact female preference for potential earnings in a mate, and stated preferences might not fully align with actual mate choice (e.g., Eastwick and Finkel, 2008) especially due to assortative mating that is present both in online dating sites and in the real world.

While evidence of female income preferences is often cited, I have to see the studies here cited much — except from Nuance Pill who also found limited support for RP/ BP claims made about female preference and their impact on actual partner choice in the context of speed dating (NuancePill, 2023). ⁴ Claims made about female preference for mates with higher earning potentials might be based on some fact, but require nuance and it does not seem to align with actual mate choice given assortative mating, the fact that NuancePill also found a weak relationship between stated preference and actual mate choice and issues with measurements. Such nuanced evidence that sheds clarity on RP/ BP claims has been noted in other works, too (e.g., Alexander, 2022a, 2022b, 2023).

1. Whether assortative mating is due to genetic similarity theory (e.g., Rushton, Russel, and Wells, 1984) or a consequence of selection through social structures (see Xie, Cheng, and Zhou, 2015) is not something to be taken here, though it seems like an interesting future discussion.

2. Also, see Simpson and Gangestad (1992) to see how individual differences in sociosexuality impact mate preference. Was not included in the text as they didn’t look at earnings.

3. I am not using “picky” in a negative connotation, mostly because I don’t see how someone having preferences for the people they want to date is a bad thing. If one is not included in someone’s preference, they can’t get angry unless their preferences don’t discriminate against anyone, in my opinion. Can’t complain about one’s standards leaving some populations out when the complainers standards might do the same.

4. I am not sure how well speed dating is impacted by self-selection effects. People who struggle with dating might attend speed dating events, and thus stated preferences might not align with actual mate choice as these individuals might need to make, on average, more compromises in mate choice than other people. Evidence needed to check.