Buss, David M. 1989. “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Impact Factor: 20.77). 02/1989; 12(01):1 - 14. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Contemporary mate preferences can provide important clues to human reproductive history. Little is known about which characteristics people value in potential mates. Five predictions were made about sex differences in human mate preferences based on evolutionary conceptions of parental investment, sexual selection, human reproductive capacity, and sexual asymmetries regarding certainty of paternity versus maternity. The predictions centered on how each sex valued earning capacity, ambition— industriousness, youth, physical attractiveness, and chastity. Predictions were tested in data from 37 samples drawn from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands (total N = 10,047). For 27 countries, demographic data on actual age at marriage provided a validity check on questionnaire data. Females were found to value cues to resource acquisition in potential mates more highly than males. Characteristics signaling reproductive capacity were valued more by males than by females. These sex differences may reflect different evolutionary selection pressures on human males and females; they provide powerful cross-cultural evidence of current sex differences in reproductive strategies. Discussion focuses on proximate mechanisms underlying mate preferences, consequences for human intrasexual competition, and the limitations of this study.
Click to see the full-text of:
Article: Buss, David M. 1989. “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "On the theoretical side, our study will allow capturing the current research status quo, thereby helping to identify existing gaps open for future research. Furthermore, online-driven transformations in the mating behavior can be traced on the basis of our findings, allowing for better comparisons with the established knowledge from offline domain (e.g., ). From the managerial perspective, our study may empower platform providers in deciding on the genderspecific add-on features or special offers for the VIP platform areas common for such websites. "
ABSTRACT: With millions of users worldwide, online dating platforms strive to assert themselves as powerful tools to find dates and form romantic relationships. However, significant differences exist in male and female use of this mate-matching technology with respect to motivation, preferences, self-presentation, interaction and outcomes. While existing research has routinely reported on gender differences in online dating, these insights remain scattered across multiple studies. To gain a systematic insight into existing findings, in this study we conduct a meta-review of existing research. We find that evolutionary theory generally holds true in online dating: Users still follow natural stereotypes when it comes to choosing a mate online. Physical attractiveness is the key criteria for men; while women, being much more demanding, prioritize socio-economic attributes when choosing a male partner. Together, our structured findings offer a deeper insight into the underlying dynamics of gender differences in online dating.Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, KAUAI, USA; 01/2016
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Evolutionary psychologists propose that men and women's divergent interests caused them to evolve differential strategies to solve reproductive problems (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Human females evolved emotional–perceptual mechanisms that cause them to be attracted by partners' ability and willingness to invest (time, affection, resources) (Buss, 1989a; Symons, 1979). Human male mechanisms include the capacity to dissociate sexual pleasure from investment and a desire for a variety of sex partners who exhibit signs of fertility (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994). "
ABSTRACT: This study tested four predictions derived from (evolutionary) sexual conflict theory. The central hypothesis was that men and women possess different emotional mechanisms that motivate and evaluate sexual activities. Women’s mechanisms are associated with their perception of partners’ ability and willingness to invest. For men these associations are weaker or inverse. Regression analyses of survey data from 194 college students revealed the following. As incidence of casual sexual relations increased (SOI Behavior), men reported less concern about partners’ intentions and less Worry–Vulnerability in response to casual sexual relations than women did; these gender interactions were significant. Regular sexual relations with partners with whom they did not desire emotional involvement showed the same pattern of gender differences. The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) measured the incidence of sexual coercion in casual sexual relations. For women, but not for men, SOI Behavior was associated with all levels of sexual coercion. Limitations and implications are discussed.Personality and Individual Differences 10/2015; 85. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.031 · 1.95 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "To perceive the world otherwise is unbearably threatening (Lerner & Miller, 1978; Lerner, 1980). Women control fewer resources and command less status than men across societies (Buss, 1989; Connell, 1995; Williams & Best, 1990), and they are paid less than men for doing the same types of work (Hegewisch et al., 2015). In absence of a justification, these facts bespeak unfairness. "
ABSTRACT: Women’s relatively worse performance in negotiation is often cited as an explanation for gender differences in advancement and pay within organizations. We review key findings from the past twenty years of research on gender differences in negotiation. Women do underperform relative to men in negotiation, but only under limited circumstances, which means the performance gap is unlikely due to lesser skills on their part. The barriers between women and negotiation excellence are of three types: cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic. Cognitive barriers stem from negative stereotypes about women’s negotiating abilities. Motivational barriers stem from desire to prevent women negotiators from excelling in a masculine domain. Paradigmatic barriers stem from how negotiation is currently studied. We call for greater attention to motivational barriers and for changes to the negotiation paradigm. Women negotiators are not incompetent, and training them to negotiate more like men is not obviously the solution. In fact, women have greater concern for others than men do, and their cooperativeness elevates collective intelligence and enables ethical behavior. Under a new paradigm of negotiation, the value of these strengths could become more readily apparent. In particular, we advocate for greater attention to long-term relationships, subjective value, and relational capital, all of which may have important economic implications in real world negotiations.Research in Organizational Behavior 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.riob.2015.09.002 · 2.06 Impact Factor