Schmitt 2012 — When the difference is in the details: a critique of Zentner and Mitura

What the study found

Schmitt's paper is a critique of Zentner and Mitura's claim that sex differences in mate preferences shrink uniformly as nations become more gender-equal. Re-examining the evidence, Schmitt argued that the gender-equality finding is not uniform: sex differences in some mate preferences — such as long-term preferences for physical attractiveness — are unrelated to a nation's level of gender parity, or are actually larger in nations with higher gender parity. ^[1]

Why it matters here

This critique sits alongside the study it responds to, so readers can weigh both sides of the same debate rather than a single result. It does not restore the idea of a fixed, universal preference gap; instead it complicates a simple "more equality means smaller differences" reading by noting that specific preferences move in different directions. That nuance is relevant to the check on is hypergamy universal?, where the question is whether mate preferences reflect an immutable law of nature or a pattern that varies by measure and context.