Faculty of Science

ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES ON HUMAN MATE PREFERENCE ACROSS
CANADA
2013 | KURTIS R. MUNRO

B.Sc. Honours thesis

  

  
ENVIRONMENTAL  INFLUENCES  ON  HUMAN  MATE  PREFERENCE  
ACROSS  CANADA  
  

by  
  

Kurtis R. Munro
  

A  THESIS  SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT    
OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF    
BACHELOR  OF  SCIENCE  (HONS.)  
in  the  
DEPARTMENT  OF  BIOLOGICAL  SCIENCES  
GENERAL  BIOLOGY    
  
  
  
  
  
  
We  accept  this  thesis  as  conforming  to  the  required  standards:  
  
_________________________________________  
Matthew  Reudink  (Ph.D.),  Thesis  Supervisor,  Dept.  Biological  Sciences  
  
_________________________________________  
Nancy  Flood  (Ph.D),  Co-­supervisor,  Dept.  Biological  Sciences  
  
__________________________________________  
Cynthia  Ross  Friedman  (Ph.D.),  Dept.  Biological  Sciences  
  
  
Dated  this  30th  day  of  April,  2013,  in  Kamloops,  British  Columbia,  Canada  

  

  

  

A BST R A C T
Sexual selection and mate preference is dynamic and can be influenced by a number of
environmental factors. The purpose of my study was to determine if there is a correlation
between environmental factors and human female mate preference in cities across Canada.
Environmental, economic, and mate preference data were collected from 26 cities across
Canada. Mate preference data was collected by looking at the first 50 online profiles for each
city on a popular online dating site. Across the 26 cities, I recorded variation in both
environmental (e.g., sex ratio, population density, population size) and mate preference data
(resource holding potential, physical attractiveness, emotional appeal and personal activities
and interests). I then asked whether the observed variation in stated preferences could be
explained by variation in environmental and economic conditions across these cities.
Furthermore, because this dating site includes the pRVWHU¶VFKDUDFWHULVWLFVI also examined
whether age was correlated to mate preference and if it explained the relationships between
mate preference and the environmental influences. I found that preference for resource
holding potential was positively related to population density and negatively related to age.
In addition, I found that population size was positively related to preference for physical
attractiveness and negatively related to preference for personal activities and interests. The
findings from this research expand our current knowledge of the influences of environment
on female human mate preference. My work also highlights the importance of examining
poster characteristics, especially age, as they tend to vary across cities and can have a strong
effect on observed patterns of female human mate preferences.

Thesis Supervisor: Assistant Professor Dr. Matthew Reudink

  

ii  

  

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N TS
First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Matt Reudink, who not only
provided me with guidance and support throughout my project, but also influenced my
decision to take on a research project. I would also like to thank Dr. Nancy Flood who was
always available and open to talk through issues when answers seemed just out of our grasp.
Also thank you to Dr. Cynthia Ross Friedman for taking the time to be on my committee. A
Special thanks goes out to my family and fiancée, who provided support throughout my
education. Also, thank you to the Thompson Rivers University Undergraduate Student
Research Experience Award Program (UREAP) committee for selecting me as a recipient of
their research scholarship and grant, making it possible to take on this research project. I am
very grateful for the opportunity to be able to make the most out of my time at TRU. The
support from everyone as well as the funding from TRU UREAP has been a large part of
making this project a success.

  

iii  

  

F I G U R E L IST
F igure 1. The average age of the females in each city who placed
11

advertisements was negatively correlated with the population size.
  

F igure 2. Examined over 26 cities average female preference for resource
holding potential was A) negatively related with the average age of the
individual displaying the profile and B) positively related with the ln(population
12  

density) of the city
  

Figure 3. A) Average female preference for physical attractiveness per city was
positively related with ln(population size). B) Average female preference for
personal activities and interests per city was negatively related with
ln(population size).

13  

T A B L E L IST
Table 1. Comparing the four female mate preference categories using
Spearman¶s ʌ͘;ŶсϭϭϭϭͿ

  

10  

iv  

  

T A B L E O F C O N T E N TS

  

A bstract««««««««««««««««««««««««««««

ii

A cknowledgements«««««««««««««««««««««««..

iii

F igure L ist«««««««««««««««««««««««««««

iv

T able L ist«««««««««««««««««««««««««««.

iv

T able of contents««««««««««««««««««««««««.

v

Introduction««««««««««««««««««««««««««.

1

Research Methodology««««««««««««««««««««««

6

Economic and Geographic Data«««««««««««««««««..

6

Mate Preference Data Collection«««««««««««««««««.

6

Age Analysis of individuals placing advertisements«««««««««...

7

Statistical Analysis««««««««««««««««««««««...

8

Results««««««««««««««««««««««««««««..

9

Discussion«««««««««««««««««««««««««««.

14

Conclusion and future wor k«««««««««««««««««««..

16

L iterature cited«««««««««««««««««««««««««

18

A ppendix 1 E nvironmental Data«««««««««««««««««

23

A ppendix 2 M ate Preference Data«««««««««««««««««

24

A ppendix 3 Descriptive words««««««««««««««««««

25

A ppendix 4 E xample O nline Profile««««««««««««««««

26

v  

  

INTRODUC TI ON
Sexual selection and mate preferences have been studied extensively across many taxonomic
groups (Byers and Kroodsma, 2009; Liu et al., 2009; Beigneux et al.;Winland et al., 2012). It
is more common for females to be the choosier sex, due to many factors including anisogamy
and differential parental investment (Trivers, 1972, Konijn, 2008). In many species, females
invest more in offspring development and in care, with the result that females are typically
being choosier than males (Burley, 1977). When sex roles are reversed, males tend to be the
choosier sex (Bonduriansky, 2001). Regardless of which sex is choosier, mates are often
selected based on the attractiveness of a mate and on resources he or she holds.
Mate preferences are not always absolute, but can vary with environmental conditions
(Slabbekoorn and Smith, 2002; Wood et al., 2006), such as the presence or absence of
predators (Godin and Briggs, 1996). For example, when there were no predators female
guppies preferred more colorful males. However, when the females were able to see a
predator, preference for brightly colored males decreased (Godin and Briggs, 1996). This
finding suggests that female guppies chose dull coloured males over the more attractive
brightly coloured males because of the higher predation risk the brightly coloured males
faced.
In many species, resource holding potential can be defined as territory size and quality.
Generally, males that hold large, high quality territories are preferred by the opposite sex
(Kelly, 2008). Using a meta-analysis on approximately 50 species, Kelly (2008) supported
WKHK\SRWKHVLVWKDWDPDOH¶VUHVRXUFHKROGLng potential is positively related to reproductive
success. In humans resource holding potential may be defined as financial stability or the
ability to acquire financial stability, financial stability of potential mates has been shown to
affect mate preferences (Jonason et al., 2012). Jonason et al. (2012) found that in long-term
relationships, females prefer a mate that has earned his financial stability over a male who
has acquired financial stability through other means (inheritance, embezzlement, and
windfall). Jonason et al. (2012) suggest that this finding is likely due to the perception that
individuals that earned their financial stability have the skills to continue earning, which is
1  
  

  

beneficial in a long-term relationship. Gangestad and Simpson (2000) suggest that there are
long-term and short-term mating strategies and that when choosing a mate females face a
trade-off. Long-term mating strategies revolve around parental investment. Short-term
strategies focus on characteristics of potential mates and beneficial genes that would be
passed down to their offspring. Gangestad and Simpson (2000) suggest that females will alter
their mating strategy based on environmental factors. If the environment requires substantial
bi-parental investment, females will place more emphasis on the parental investment
potential of a mate and less on his genetic fitness, therefore adopting the long term mating
strategy. Gangestad and Simpson (2000) suggest that if the environment was full of
pathogens females would prefer a mate that had good genetic fitness over a mate that offered
parental investment. In this type of environment, a large proportion of the women were
willing to take part in short term, extra pair mating to gain genetic benefits at the risk of
losing parental investment from their primary mate.
In humans, males and females differ with respect to the traits they find most appealing. When
describing their preferred mate, males generally place more emphasis on female physical
attractiveness, whereas females generally prefer mates that have large resource holding
potential and characteristics that determine family commitment (Bereczkei et al., 1997). Not
surprisingly, Bereczkei et al. (1997) found that the higher a PDOH¶V resource holding
potential, the more demands he made in his advertisement, with respect to physical
attractiveness. Similarly, females that were considered physically attractive made more
demands in their advertisements about the resource holding potential of potential mates.
Bereczkie et al. concluded that the more desirable characteristics an individual possesses the
choosier that individual is able to be when looking for a mate.
Evolutionary theory suggests that human males attempt to maximize fitness by preferring
younger females, who are in their reproductive prime, and who thus have higher reproductive
potential (Kenrick and Keefe, 1992, Buss, 1989). Females may increase their fitness by
preferring an older male who is more likely to have better resource holding capabilities
(Kenrick and Keefe, 1992).
2  
  

  

As been shown for other animals, variation in human mate preference is linked to variation in
environmental factors. McGraw (2002) found that in the United States, female mate
preference in humans depended on local environmental factors such as population density,
resource demand, and sex ratio. To quantify the male attributes that females were most
interested in for a particular city, McGraw (2002) examined Lonely Heart ads from
newspapers ford words used to describe desired characteristics desired in a partner and
categorized them as describing: (1) physical attractiveness (e.g., athletic, handsome, tall); (2)
resource-holding potential (e.g., financially stable, intelligent, professional); (3) emotional
appeal (e.g., compassionate, loving, sincere); and (4) personal activities/interests (e.g., music,
the outdoors, theater). In more densely populated cities with high female: male sex ratios,
where there was presumably with high competition for resources and mates, McGraw found
that females preferred mates with high resource holding potential and placed less emphasis
on either emotional attachment or on similarity of interests or hobbies.
Age of the individual seeking a mate also has an influence on their mate preference. In
females, their own age determines the age of the mate that they are seeking, regardless if they
are seeking a long-term or short-term relationship (Buunk et al., 2001). Kenrick and Keefe
(1992) suggest that females often prefer a slightly older male, who is more established and is
able to provide for them. Similarly, Buunk et al. (2001) found that females prefer a mate who
is older than themselves, but is within 3-4 years of their own age. Conversely, these authours
found that in long-term relationships males prefer mates who are younger than themselves
although still similar to their own age. In short-term relationships, however, males tend to
prefer females that are in their optimal reproductive years. Buunk et al. (2001) also suggest
that as a male ages his desired age for a partner increases, the reason why males change their
mate preference over their lifetime could be related to attainability of mates and social
acceptance of age differences of individuals in a relationship. Some studies have shown that
there is also age variation in the mate preference of females (Gil-Burmann et al., 2002). GilBurmann et al. found that females under the age of 40 seek mainly physically attractive
mates, while females over the age of 40 tend to seek males with high socioeconomic status.

3  
  

  

Due to a technological shift, newspapers are no longer a preferred source for finding
potential partners. Many people seeking a partner, or selecting a potential mate, advertise on
one of the various online dating sites. Although some people still prefer to meet their partner
face to face, these online sites are becoming increasingly popular (Valkenburg and Peter,
2007). The majority of people using online dating sites as a way to meet potential partners
are 30-50 years of age (Valkenburg and Peter, 2007). Online dating participation was found
to be unrelated to income and education level. Online personal ads have been used in recent
studies to determine preferred characteristics of potential partners (Morgan et al., 2010).
Morgan et al. (2010) examined information from 294 profiles on connectingsingles.com to
determine preferences for physical, lifestyle, and personality characteristics. Three
characteristics an individual used to describe themselves and preferred traits in a partner were
examined for differences based on four predictors: gender, sexual orientation, age, and
desired relationship type. In these advertisements, women were more likely to include
personality characteristics that they desired in a partner, whereas males frequently offered
their own qualities. With respect to sexual orientation, both homosexual men and women
expressed more interest in short-term relationships than heterosexual men and women.
Physical attributes were important to all age groups; however, the older advertisers,
regardless of gender, expressed more interest in personality characteristics in their
advertisements. For both their own and preferred characteristics Morgan et al. (2010)
discovered advertisers seeking short-term relationships included more physical
characteristics in their ads than did advertisers seeking long term relationships, who tended to
advertise more personality characteristics.
$QGHUVRQDQG.ORIVWDG¶V ) examined online personal ads across the United States to
relate cost of living to the desired income the person placing the advertisement was seeking
in a partner. They found a significant positive relationship between these two variables. They
also found that if the income of the advertiser is introduced as a factor, the correlation
disappears, potentially because the advertiser, regardless of sex, looks for a partner who has
an income similar to his or her own.

4  
  

  

Looking at online dating site profiles of the advertiser along with profile characteristics can
present challenges because of the possibility that advertisers or responders may misrepresent
themselves. Individuals using online dating sites are more likely to lie about their physical
appearance (e.g., their height, weight) and age than they are about characteristics unrelated to
how they look (Toma and Hancock, 2010). Similarly, profile picture characteristics are not
always fair representations of the individuals involved. Hancock and Toma (2009) examined
whether DQLQGLYLGXDO¶VSURILOHSLFWXUHZDVDQDFFXUDWHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOE\
comparing the SHUVRQ¶V self-reported accuracy and an independent judge¶s perception of the
accuracy of the profile picture. While the self-reported accuracy of their profile picture was
very high, the independent judges identified only one in three profile pictures as accurate.
This result gives an indication of the importance individuals place on representing their
appearance in the best possible way.
My study aims extend the study of whether environmental factors influence female mate
preferences among Canadian cities. Over ten years ago, McGraw (2002) examined
newspaper Lonely Heart advertisements to determine whether geographic variables
influenced female human mate preference in the United States. McGraw (2002) discovered
that in cities with high density, high cost of living and female biased sex ratios, females
emphasized the importance resource holding potential and were less concerned emotional
appeal and similarity of personal activities and interests. Over the past decade there has been
a shift away from newspaper classified ads towards online dating sites, which provide
detailed personal profiles of the advertiser. For example, these profiles provide the age of the
female placing the advertisement, this can be used to examine the age of the advertiser is an
important predictor of what females prefer in mates. In this study I aim to 1) test for variation
in female mate preference among Canadian cities, 2) determine if environmental factors
predict variation in female mate preference, and 3) determine if the age of a female
determines her mate preference.

5  
  

  

R ESE A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y
Socioeconomic data was collected primarily from the most current Canadian census in 2011.
When there was lacking information on some variables from the 2011 census the 2006
census was used. Mate Preference data was collected from personal profiles from a popular
online dating site, match.com following Morgan et al. (2010).
After consultation with the human ethics committee at TRU, my supervisor and I were
informed that because I was not collecting information that could be used to identify
individuals, human ethics approval was not required. In addition, reading the match.com
privacy policy and terms and conditions, there appeared to be no conflicts with user privacy
in using online profiles for research.

Economic and Geographic Data
At the time of the study, population information has been released for the 2011 census
allowing 2011 population data such as population size (both sexes, male and female),
population density, and sex ratio to be used (Government of Canada, 2011). Median total
income (both sexes, male and female) was not available for the 2011 census at the time of the
study; therefore, income data was taken from 2006 community profiles (Government of
Canada, 2006). From this information I was able to create a snapshot of the economic status
of the Canadian cities chosen for this study.

Mate Preference Data Collection
)HPDOHPDWHSUHIHUHQFHVZHUHTXDQWLILHGLQDVLPLODUPDQQHUDV0F*UDZ¶V  VWXG\RI
human mate preferences across the United States. He examined archived Lonely Heart
advertisements in newspapers of 23 cities across the United States. I used the same four male
6  
  

  

attributes identified by McGraw (2002) to classify female preferences: (1) physical
attractiveness (e.g., athletic, handsome, tall); (2) resource-holding potential (e.g., financially
stable, intelligent, professional); (3) emotional appeal (e.g., compassionate, loving, sincere);
and (4) personal activities/interests (e.g., music, the outdoors, theater). The descriptive words
were taken from each of the match.com profile descriptions, in which an individual would
explain what characteristics they would like in a potential partner. The words from all
categories for each individual were summed to find the total number of descriptive words
each individual had used in their advertisement. The number of words used by the
³DGYHUWLVHU´ that fell into each of the 4 categories was then divided by the total number of
descriptive words to find the proportion of the overall description representing each of the
four categories of male attributes.
Economic and mate preference data was collected for 26 cities throughout Canada. The cities
were chosen based on the availability of economic and geographic data and to ensure a range
of city sizes and geographic locations. Fifty personal advertisements written by heterosexual
female were examined for each city with the exception of, Summerside, P.E.I., and
Yellowknife, North West Territories, for which there were only 42 and 33 such
advertisements available. In cases where there were over 50 personal advertisements
available, the first 50 that appeared on match.com were used. This was considered to be a
random sample because there was no apparent order to the profiles on the website

Age Analysis of individuals placing advertisements
I examined whether age of the individual posting the ad was an important driver of mate
preference patterns by using an online dating site (match.com) as my source of mate
preference data. Ages of the individuals were recorded from their profiles on match.com.

7  
  

  

Statistical Analysis
All variables were tested to see if they were normally distributed using goodness of fit tests.
Because both population size and population density were not normal, I transformed the data
using natural log transformation. In the complete data set all mate preference categories had
a non-normal distribution, therefore in order to do correlation and regression analyses all
variables across profiles were averaged for each city to ensure independence of data.
Exceptions where the complete data set were used were to examine variation in mate
preference data among the 26 cities and when comparing mate preference categories to one
another. Due to the non-normal distribution of mate preference data in the complete data set a
Kruskal Wallace test was used to examine whether there were differences in trait preference
among cities. The complete data set was also used to reveal correlations among mate
preference categories. Due to the non-normal distribution of mate preference data in the
FRPSOHWHGDWDVHWD6SHDUPDQ¶Vρ analyses was used to determine whether there were
correlations among preferences. Using the average data form each city I examined the
correlation between the average number of descriptive words used in each category and the
total number of descriptive words. A Pearson correlation was used to examine whether there
was a relationship between the total number of descriptive words and female preference. Age
information, in the complete data set, had a normal distribution throughout the 26 cities,
therefore an ANOVA was used to determine if the mean age of advertisers varied among the
26 Canadian cities. Correlations were then tested for to examine if age was correlated to any
of the environmental predictor variables. Backwards stepwise multiple regressions were used
to determine the degree to which economic variables (median total income) and
environmental variables (sex ratio, population size, population density, and age) predicted
variability in the emphasis that females placed on each of the four male traits.

8  
  

  

R ESU L TS
I examined variation in the emphasis females placed on the four categories of male
characteristics in potential mates across 26 cities. A non-parametric Kruskal Wallace test was
used on the complete data set and revealed that preference for physical attractiveness varied
significantly across cities (n = 1111, Ȥ2 = 42.68, p = 0.02), whereas resource holding potential
(n = 1111, Ȥ2 = 25.53, p = 0.43), personal activities and interests (n = 1111, Ȥ2 = 27.61, p =
0.33), and emotional appeal (n = 1111, Ȥ2 = 18.12, p = 0.83) did not.
The complete data set was used to compare the four mate preference categories, 6SHDUPDQ¶V
ρ revealed that the importance that a female placed on personal activities and interests was
negatively correlated with the emphasis she placed on other categories (physical
attractiveness, resource holding potential, and emotional appeal) (Table 1). Preference for
males with emotional appeal was also significantly negatively correlated with preference
physically attractive males and preference for males with resource holding potential (Table
1). Although only marginally significant, preference for resource holding potential seemed to
be weakly correlated with physical attractiveness (Table 1).

9  
  

  

7DEOH&RPSDULQJWKHIRXUIHPDOHPDWHSUHIHUHQFHFDWHJRULHVXVLQJ6SHDUPDQ¶Vʌ.  (n  =  
1111)
Female  Mate  Preference  
Category  
Personal  activities  and  
interests  

By    Female  Mate  
Preference  Category  
Physical  attractiveness  

Spearman͛Ɛʌ  

Probability  p  

-­‐0.14  

<  0.0001*  

Personal  activities  and  
interests  

Resource  holding  potential  

-­‐0.36  

<  0.0001*  

Personal  activities  and  
interests  

Emotional  appeal  

-­‐0.64  

<  0.0001*  

Emotional  appeal  

Resource  holding  potential  

-­‐0.23  

<  0.0001*  

Emotional  appeal  

Physical  attractiveness  

-­‐0.15  

<  0.0001*  

Resource  holding  potential  

Physical  attractiveness  

0.06  

0.06  

Using the average data from each city Pearson correlations were conducted to determine if
the four mate preference categories were correlated with the total number of descriptive
words used by the individual in their profile. Both average physical attractiveness (n = 26, r =
0.59, p = 0.002) and average resource holding potential (n = 26, r = 0.40, p = 0.04) had a
significant positive correlation with the total number of descriptive words used. Average
personal activities and interest (n = 26, r = 0.51, p = 0.008) was significantly negatively
correlated to the total number of descriptive words used. Average emotional appeal was not
correlated with the total number of descriptive words used (n = 26, r = 0.03 p = 0.90).
An ANOVA test was conducted using the complete data set to examine if the average age of
females varied among the 26 Canadian cities. The test revealed that there was significant
variation among cities (n = 1275, F = 3.31, p < 0.0001). Further analysis of average data for
each city revealed that age was significantly correlated with population size (n = 26, r = 0.79,
p < 0.0001) and sex ratio (n = 26, r = 0.41, p = 0.039) (Figure 1). There was no correlation
between age and population density (n = 26, r = 0.33, p = 0.09) or median total income (n =
26, r = 0.15, p = 0.47).
10  
  

Average age of individuals per city

  

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32
4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

ln(population size)
F igure 1. The average age of the females in each city who placed advertisements was
negatively correlated with the population size.
Population size, population density, sex ratio, median income, and age were used to represent
the environmental and economic conditions of cities. Using these predictor variables, a
backwards-stepwise regression revealed that environmental factors are associated with
female mate choice preferences. The importance a female placed on resource holding
potential was associated with both age and population density. Specifically, age and
preference for males with high resource holding potential were negatively related (n = 26, r2
= 0.26, p = 0.008), suggesting that as females age they place less emphasis on resource
holding potential (Figure 2). Conversely, female preference for resource holding potential
was positively related to population density (n = 26, r2 = 0.25, p = 0.008), indicating that
females in densely populated cities place a greater emphasis on the resource holding
capabilities of a potential mate (Figure 2). Using age and population density, a model was
created revealing that both together, (n = 26, r2 = 0.38, p = 0.004) and individually, age (n =
26, r = 0.62 p = 0.04) and population density (n = 26, r = 0.62, p = 0.04) significantly predict
the degree of emphasis that females place on the resource holding potential of males.

11  
  

  

B)

  

Average female preference for
resource holding potential per city (%)

Average female preference for
resource holding potential per city (%)

A)
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
34

36

38

40

42

44

Average age of individuals per city

46

0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
1.5

2.0

  

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

ln(population density)

F igure 2. Examined over 26 cities average female preference for resource holding potential
was A) negatively related with the average age of the individual displaying the profile and B)
positively related with the ln(population density) of the city

A backwards-stepwise regression model revealed that population size was also a predictor of
the extent to which females were concerned with the physical attractiveness and the personal
activities and interests of a male. Female preference for physical attractiveness was positively
related to population size (n = 26, r2 = 0.31, p = 0.01) (Figure 3). Conversely, emphasis on
personal activities and interests was negatively related to the population size (n = 26, r2 =
0.23, p =0.01) (Figure 3).

12  
  

  

B)
0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
4.0

  

Average female preference for personal
activities and interests per city (%)

Average female preference for
physical attractiveness per city (%)

A)

4.5

5.0

5.5

ln(population size)

6.0

6.5

  

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20
4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

ln(population size)

F igure 3. A) Average female preference for physical attractiveness per city was positively
related with ln(population size). B) Average female preference for personal activities and
interests per city was negatively related with ln(population size).

13  
  

  

D ISC USSI O N
In this study, I found that across 26 Canadian cities environmental factors predicted the
stated preferences in online advertisements. More specifically, population size predicted how
much emphasis female placed on both the physical attractiveness and the personal activities
and interests of potential mates. In addition, a preference for males with high resource
holding potential was positively related to population density and negatively related to age.
My study provides support for the hypothesis that female mate preference may be influenced
by environmental factors. In addition, I examined the influence of age on mate preference
and found that age is a significant predictor of expressed mate preference, with a negative
relationship with preference for resource holding potential, indicating that age should be
taken into account when examining variation in mate preference.
Using ages of individuals placing the advertisements, available through online dating
profiles, I was able to examine variation in ages among the 26 Canadian cities. Age was
negatively correlated with population size and sex ratio. Thus, more populated cities may
have a younger population, or at least more young people placing advertisements for males,
compared to smaller cities.
Female preference for males with high resource holding potential was associated with both
variation in environmental factors and variation in the age of females placing advertisements.
Preference for males with high resource holding potential was positively related to
population density and negatively related to age. These results suggest that in densely
populated cities, where more young females place advertisements, these females may place
more emphasis on resource holding potential. The positive relationship between population
density and preference for resource holding potential are consistent with findings of McGraw
(2002), who showed that highly dense cities with a high cost of living and a female biased
sex ratio were environments in which there was an increased demand for mates and
resources. In this environment, females placed more emphasis on resource-holding traits in a
mate and less on emotional appeal and personal activities and interests. There are two
possible explanations for the negative relationship I observed between age and female
14  
  

  

preference for males with high resource holding potential. First, as females age they tend to
have higher incomes potentially resulting in more financial stability (Government of Canada,
2006). More financially stable females may require fewer resources from their mates and
thus place less emphasis on resource holding potential in their online dating profiles. A
second hypothesis is that as a female passes her reproductive prime she is less desirable to
the opposite sex and therefore is unable to expect the same amount of resource holding
potential, in a mate, compared to when she was younger (Waynforth and Dunbar, 1995,
Bereczkei et al., 1997). For example, Bereczkei et al. (1997) found that females in better
physical condition (young, physically attractive and fertile) were able to expect more
resource holding potential in a mate.
Female preference for physical attractiveness was positively related to population size,
suggesting that as the population of a city increases, females place more emphasis on
physical attractiveness in a potential mate. This finding could be partially explained by the
larger number of human interactions that take place in a city with a larger population (Loo,
1974). With more interactions, a female would have a larger selection of potential mates and
therefore may be more selective when choosing a mate. Population size was also negatively
correlated to the age of females placing the advertisement, suggesting that cities with larger
populations tend to have more young individuals placing advertisements. These finding
indicate that physical attractiveness may be preferred by females in large populations, which
tend to have more young people placing advertisements. These findings support those of GilBurmann et al. (2002), who found that females under the age of 40 tended to seek physically
attractive males, whereas females over the age of 40 were more interested in males who
could increase their social status. Findings of Gil-Burmann and colleagues support my
findings for female preference for physical attractiveness in a partner, however they also
contradict the relationship I found between age and preferences for resource holding
potential.
Female preference for personal activities and interests was negatively related to population
size, suggesting that as the population increases females place less emphasis on the personal
activities and interests of potential mates. Possible explanations for these findings could be
15  
  

  

that sharing personal activities or interest may be more important in smaller cities where
individuals are more limited in choices of activities, or that larger cities provide ample
activities and interests for individuals, making it less important to find a mate to share
activities and interests with. These findings suggest that in cities with small populations,
females prefer personal activities and interests, reducing the emphasis placed on the
remaining mate choice categories. These findings are supported by Rudzitis (1999), who
suggested that employment alone is not sufficient to dictate where a person resides. Rudzitis
(1999) found that the second most important reason for moving to a rural area was outdoor
recreation, which may explain why individual who live in rural areas place a large emphasis
on activities.

C O N C L USI O N A N D F U T U R E W O R K
I observed variation in female mate preference across Canada, which correlated with
variation in environmental variables such as population size, and population density and age.
Broadly, my findings suggest that females that reside in small towns are more likely to prefer
a mate that has similar interests and place less emphasis on preference for resources and
physical attractiveness. In contrast, females residing in large cities tend to prefer a physically
attractive mate with high resource holding potential, and place less emphasis on a males
interests. Age was correlated to environmental variables such as population size and sex ratio
as well as female preference for resource holding potential. My findings suggest that older
females place less emphasis on resource holding potential than younger females. This result
is consistent with findings suggesting that more young advertisers reside in cities with large
populations and more older female advertisers tend to live in small cities (Government of
Canada, 2011). However, the effects of population size on mate preferences remained
significant after controlling for variation in age, suggesting that population size acts as an
independent predictor variable for the emphasis females place on the resource holding
potential of a male.

16  
  

  

There are many avenues for further study in this field as there is a lack of research on
environmental influences on mate preference in Canada. One opportunity would be to
examine more of the information provided in the online profiles. For example, we could
examine marital status, income and number of children to determine if females with children
and low incomes would prefer a mate with high resource holding potential. Another more
intensive option would be to expand the study to include judging panels to rate attractiveness
of profile pictures and compare the rating to mate preference data to examine how physical
attractiveness of a female influences the emphasis she places on characteristics of a potential
mate.
  

My research provides evidence that human female mate preference in Canada is dynamic and
is influenced by both environmental factors and the age of the individual. Although this study
expands our knowledge of female mate preference, there is still a need for additional research
to fully understand the complexity of human mate choice.

17  
  

  

LITERATURE  CITED  
  

Anderson RC, Klofstad CA. 2012. For Love or Money? The Influence of Personal Resources
and Environmental Resource Pressures on Human Mate Preferences. Foster S, editor.
Ethology 118:841±849.

Beigneux É, Féron C, Gouat P. 2012. Concordance in mate choice in female mound-building
mice. Comptes Rendus Biologies 335:220±225.

Bereczkei T, Voros S, Gal A, Bernath L. 1997. Resources, Attractiveness, Family
Commitment; Reproductive Decisions in Human Mate Choice. Ethology 103:681±699.

Bonduriansky R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and
evidence. Biological Reviews 76:305±339.

Burley N. 1977. Parental investment, mate choice, and mate quality. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 74:3476±3479.

Buss DM. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested
in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1±14.

Buunk BP, Dijkstra P, Kenrick DT, Warntjes A. 2001. Age preferences for mates as related
to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evolution and Human Behavior 22:241±250.

18  
  

  

Byers BE, Kroodsma DE. 2009. Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires. Animal
Behaviour 77:13±22.

Clutton-Brock TH, Rose KE, Guinness FE. 1997. Density±related changes in sexual
selection in red deer. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:1509±1516.

Eshel I. 1979. Sexual selection, population density, and availability of mates. Theoretical
Population Biology 16:301±314.

Gangestad SW, Simpson JA. 2000. The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic
pluralism. Behav. Brain Sci. 23:573.

Gil-Burmann C, Peláez F, Sánchez S. 2002. Mate choice differences according to sex and
age. Hum Nat 13:493±508.

Godin J-GJ, Briggs SE. 1996. Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Animal
Behaviour 51:117±130.

Government of Canada SC. 2007. Statistics Canada: 2006 Community Profiles. Available
from: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/

Government of Canada SC. 2012. Statistics Canada: 2011 Census Profile. Available from:
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?lang=e

19  
  

  

Hancock JT, Toma CL. 2009. Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Accuracy of Online
Dating Photographs. Journal of Communication 59:367±386.

Jonason PK, Li NP, Madson L. 2012. It is not all about the Benjamins: Understanding
preferences for mates with resources. Personality and Individual Differences 52:306±310.

Kelly CD. 2008. The interrelationships between resource-holding potential, resource-value
and reproductive success in territorial males: How much variation can we explain? Behav.
Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:855±871.

Kenrick DT, Keefe RC. 1992. Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human
reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15:75±91.

Konijn E. 2008. Mediated Interpersonal Communication. Taylor & Francis

Liu M, Siefferman L, Mays Jr. H, Steffen JE, Hill GE. 2009. A field test of female mate
preference for male plumage coloration in eastern bluebirds. Animal Behaviour 78:879±885.

Loo CM. 1974. Crowding and Behavior. Ardent Media

McGraw KJ. 2002. Environmental predictors of geographic variation in human mating
preferences. Ethology 108:303±317.

20  
  

  

Morgan EM, Richards TC, VanNess EM. 2010. Comparing narratives of personal and
preferred partner characteristics in online dating advertisements. Computers in Human
Behavior 26:883±888.

Orlando MJ, Verba M. 2005. Do Only Big Cities Innovate? Techological Maturity and the
Location of Innovation. Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City 90:31.

Rudzitis G. 1999. Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural West. Rural Development
Perspectives 14:9±13.

Slabbekoorn H, Smith TB. 2002. Habitat-Dependent Song Divergence In The Little
Greenbul: An Analysis of Environmental Selection Pressures On Acoustic Signals. Evolution
56:1849±1858.

Toma CL, Hancock JT. 2010. Looks and Lies: The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Online
Dating Self-Presentation and Deception. Communication Research 37:335±351.

Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. Available from:
http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy2664/Documents/trivers.pdf

Valkenburg PM, Peter J. 2007. Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics
of online daters. Cyberpsychol Behav 10:849±852.

21  
  

  

Waynforth D, Dunbar RIM. 1995. Conditional Mate Choice Strategies in Humans: Evidence
IURP³/RQHO\+HDUWV´$GYHUWLVHPHQWV%HKDYLRXU±779.

Winland C, Bolton JL, Ford B, Jampana S, Tinker J, Frohardt RJ, Guarraci FA, Zewail-Foote
0³1LFHJX\VILQLVKODVW´,QIOXHQFHRIPDWHFKRLFHRQUHSURGXFWLYHVXFFHVVLQ/RQJ±
Evans rats. Physiology & Behavior 105:868±876.

Wood WE, Yezerinac SM, Dufty J. 2006. Song Sparrow (Melospiza Melodia) Song Varies
With Urban Noise. The Auk 123:650±659.

22  
  

  

A PP E N D I X 1
ENVIRONM ENT A L DA T A
City  

Vancouver,  B.C.  
Calgary,  Alberta  
Saskatoon,  Saskatchewan  
Winnipeg,  Manitoba  
Toronto,  Ontario  
Montréal,  Quebec  
Halifax,  Nova  Scotia  
St.  John's,  Newfoundland  and  
Labrador  
Victoria,  British  Columbia  
Edmonton,  Alberta  
Regina,  Saskatchewan  
Thunder  Bay,  Ontario  
Québec,  Quebec  
Kamloops,  B.C.  
Windsor,  Ontario  
Guelph,  Ontario  
Kelowna,  British  Columbia  
St.  Catharines-­Niagara,  Ontario  
Hamilton,  Ontario  
Peterborough,  Ontario  
Summerside,  P.E.I.  
Charlottetown  P.E.I.  
Whitehorse,  Yukon  
Yellowknife,  North  West  
Teritories  
Abbotsford-­Mission,  British  
Columbia  
Saint  John,  New  Brunswick  

23  
  

Median  total  
income  (city)  
23682  
30542  
25868  
26015  
24544  
21459  
27198  
22852  

population  
ln(population  
Sex  
Population  density  
ln(population  
Average  age  
(both  sexes  
city)  
ratio  
per  square  km  
density)  
city)  
(city)  
(city)  
603502  
5.78  
0.96  
5249  
3.72  
36.72  
1096833  
6.04  
1.03  
1329  
3.12  
36.02  
222189  
5.35  
0.96  
1060  
3.03  
43.12  
663617  
5.82  
0.94  
1430  
3.16  
38.02  
2615060  
6.42  
0.92  
4150  
3.62  
35.64  
1649519  
6.22  
0.94  
4518  
3.65  
36.76  
372679  
5.57  
0.92  
68  
1.83  
40.72  
106172  
5.03  
0.91  
238  
2.38  
38.10  

24651  
27734  
29100  
27395  
26178  
26075  
25443  
30078  
25134  
25114  
26267.36  
24212  
22382  
22229.5  
34337  
44567  

80017  
812201  
193100  
108359  
516622  
85678  
210891  
121688  
117312  
131400  
519949  
78698  
14751  
34586.5  
23276  
19234  

4.90  
5.91  
5.29  
5.03  
5.71  
4.93  
5.32  
5.09  
5.07  
5.12  
5.72  
4.90  
4.17  
4.54  
4.37  
4.28  

0.89  
0.99  
0.95  
0.94  
0.93  
0.96  
0.94  
0.94  
0.92  
0.91  
0.95  
0.89  
0.87  
0.86  
0.98  
1.02  

4109  
1187  
1328  
330  
1138  
286  
1441  
1395  
554  
1367  
465  
1234  
520  
804.5  
56  
182  

3.61  
3.07  
3.12  
2.52  
3.06  
2.46  
3.16  
3.14  
2.74  
3.14  
2.67  
3.09  
2.72  
2.91  
1.75  
2.26  

44.78  
34.48  
41.86  
42.96  
40.64  
41.82  
39.06  
39.38  
43.40  
41.70  
38.18  
43.88  
45.12  
40.96  
41.02  
44.27  

22990  

133497  

5.13  

0.97  

356  

2.55  

39.52  

22510  

70063  

4.85  

0.89  

222  

2.35  

42.18  

  

  

A PP E N D I X 2
M A T E PR E F E R E N C E D A T A
City  

Average  
physical  
attractiveness  
category  (%)    

Physical  
attractiveness  
category  standard  
deviation    

Average  
resource  holding  
potential  
category  (%)  

Emotional  
appeal  category  
standard  
deviation    

Average  
personal  
activities/in
terests  (%)  

Average  
total  key  
words  

0.29  

Personal  
activities/  
interests  
standard  
deviation    
0.28  

Vancouver,  B.C.  

0.06  

0.11  

0.23  

0.23  

Calgary,  Alberta  

0.12  

0.16  

0.28  

0.27  

0.41  

0.31  

0.35  

0.28  

0.25  

0.26  

7.34  

Saskatoon,  Saskatchewan  

0.10  

0.15  

0.20  

Winnipeg,  Manitoba  

0.08  

0.18  

0.25  

0.18  

0.38  

0.28  

0.42  

0.25  

0.33  

0.27  

5.26  

0.35  

0.25  

0.32  

5.18  

Toronto,  Ontario  

0.07  

0.11  

Montréal,  Quebec  

0.08  

0.16  

0.26  

0.24  

0.24  

0.24  

0.33  

0.25  

0.35  

0.29  

7.04  

0.43  

0.32  

0.25  

0.29  

5.78  

Halifax,  Nova  Scotia  

0.08  

St.  John's,  Newfoundland  and  
Labrador  
Victoria,  British  Columbia  

0.08  

0.13  

0.22  

0.17  

0.25  

0.22  

0.45  

0.29  

0.24  

0.27  

6.58  

0.25  

0.36  

0.30  

0.31  

0.31  

6.00  

Edmonton,  Alberta  

0.05  

0.09  

0.06  

0.12  

0.26  

0.25  

0.39  

0.33  

0.31  

0.28  

5.88  

0.26  

0.23  

0.37  

0.28  

0.31  

0.27  

Regina,  Saskatchewan  

0.08  

5.76  

0.16  

0.18  

0.20  

0.35  

0.30  

0.38  

0.37  

5.10  

Thunder  Bay,  Ontario  
Québec,  Quebec  

0.07  

0.17  

0.18  

0.19  

0.43  

0.30  

0.33  

0.28  

6.36  

0.02  

0.06  

0.21  

0.30  

0.42  

0.35  

0.35  

0.35  

3.72  

Kamloops,  B.C.  

0.07  

0.13  

0.17  

0.25  

0.41  

0.37  

0.36  

0.40  

4.32  

Windsor,  Ontario  

0.09  

0.14  

0.18  

0.20  

0.43  

0.30  

0.29  

0.31  

5.64  

Guelph,  Ontario  

0.08  

0.16  

0.22  

0.20  

0.40  

0.27  

0.30  

0.31  

5.68  

Kelowna,  British  Columbia  

0.12  

0.14  

0.23  

0.24  

0.40  

0.27  

0.26  

0.27  

6.10  

St.  Catharines-­Niagara,  Ontario  

0.05  

0.10  

0.19  

0.22  

0.37  

0.27  

0.39  

0.32  

5.18  

Hamilton,  Ontario  

0.07  

0.13  

0.19  

0.19  

0.37  

0.30  

0.37  

0.34  

4.94  

Peterborough,  Ontario  

0.07  

0.12  

0.19  

0.18  

0.33  

0.25  

0.40  

0.30  

7.06  

Summerside,  P.E.I.  

0.01  

0.04  

0.20  

0.28  

0.34  

0.32  

0.44  

0.38  

4.02  

Charlottetown  P.E.I.  

0.04  

0.10  

0.21  

0.25  

0.38  

0.36  

0.38  

0.37  

3.32  

Whitehorse,  Yukon  

0.04  

0.08  

0.16  

0.20  

0.42  

0.33  

0.39  

0.36  

4.40  

Yellowknife,  North  West  Teritories  

0.04  

0.10  

0.21  

0.25  

0.37  

0.30  

0.38  

0.35  

5.15  

Abbotsford-­Mission,  British  Columbia  

0.07  

0.11  

0.19  

0.21  

0.40  

0.30  

0.34  

0.32  

6.78  

Saint  John,  New  Brunswick  

0.04  

0.09  

0.15  

0.16  

0.51  

0.32  

0.29  

0.30  

5.86  

24  
  

Resource  holding  
Average  
potential  category  
emotional  
standard  deviation     appeal  category  
(%)  

  

6.98  

  

A PP E N D I X 3
D ESC R IP T I V E W O R DS
Physical  
attractiveness  

Resource  
holding  
potential  

Emotional  
appeal  

Personal  
activities  and  
interests  

attractive  

educated  

compassionate   music  

handsome  

financially  
stable  

loving  

outdoors  

great  smile  

well  off    

sincere  

theater  

tall  

intelligent  

caring  

hiking    

athletic  

professional   sincere  

biking  

in  good  shape  

smart  

honest  

swimming  

beautiful  eyes  

income  
(high)  

trustworthy  

dancing  

muscular  

competent  

genuine  

camping  

strong  

good  job  

affectionate  

reading  

physically  fit  

employed  

passionate  

night  out  
(clubs  and  
bars)  

25  
  

  

A PP E N D I X 4
E X A M P L E O N L I N E PR O F I L E

26