Abstract
The difference in genetic relatedness between parents and offspring results into traits such as beauty being more beneficial in a spouse than in an in-law. As a consequence, mate and in-law preferences do not overlap, and each party tends to prefer more the traits that give it more benefits. This paper tests the hypothesis that this divergence in preferences interacts with the tradeoffs nature of mating to give rise to parent-offspring conflict over mating. In particular, using a design where mate choice is constrained by a budget, three hypotheses are tested: First, asymmetries between in-law and mate preferences result in asymmetrical compromises in the choice of an in-law and a spouse. Second, the hypothesis is tested that when choice is constrained, disagreement spreads to traits where there is no divergence between in-law and mate preferences. Finally, it is hypothesized that there is a negative relationship between mate value and parent-offspring conflict over mating. Evidence from two independent studies in two different countries provides support for all three hypotheses.