Miami Dade College Sexual Conflict Paper “This article is about 15 pages long. What follows the main article is a series of commentaries on its ideas. You

Miami Dade College Sexual Conflict Paper “This article is about 15 pages long. What follows the main article is a series of commentaries on its ideas. You may check these out if you’re interested. You do need to read the whole article by Buss, but the rest is optional.”one of the attached file is the article the other file is examples on how to write this assignment that is has to be around 500 words BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1989) 12, 1-49
Printed in the United States of America
Note: This article is about 15 pages long.
What follows the main article is a series of
commentaries on its ideas. You may check
these out if you’re interested.
Sex differences in human mate
preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
David M. Buss
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml
48109-1346
Electronic mail: david buss@um.cc.umich.edu
Abstract: 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, ambitionindustriousness, 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.
Keywords: assortative mating; cultural differences; evolution; mate preferences; reproductive strategy; sex differences; sexual
selection; sociobiology
1. Introduction
Mate preferences acquire importance in at least three
scientific contexts. First, they can affect the current
direction of sexual selection by influencing who is differentially excluded from and included in mating (Darwin
1871). Favored mate characteristics that show some
heritability will typically be represented more frequently
in subsequent generations. Individuals lacking favored
characteristics tend to become no one’s ancestors (Thornhill & Thqrnhill 1983). Second, current mate preferences
may reflect prior selection pressures, thus providing
important clues to a species’ reproductive history. Third,
mate preferences can exert selective pressures on other
components of the mating system. In the context of
intrasexual competition, for example, tactics used to
attract and retain mates should be strongly influenced by
the mate preferences expressed by members of the opposite sex (Buss 1988). Because of the powerful reproductive consequences of preferential mating, it is reasonable
to assume that mate preferences will depart from randomness and evolve through sexual selection (Darwin
1859; 1871; Fisher 1930). This assumption, first advanced
by Darwin, has been documented empirically for a variety of nonhuman species (e.g., Bateson 1983; Majerus
1986).
In spite of the importance of mate preferences, little is
known about precisely which characteristics in potential
© 1989 Cambridge University Press
0140-525X189 $5.00+00
mates are valued by human males and females (Buss 1985;
Thiessen & Gregg 1980). Particularly lacking are good
cross-cultural data. Cross-cultural studies become crucial
for testing evolution-based hypotheses that posit speciestypical or sex-typical mate preferences. Recent theoretical work by Trivers (1972), Williams (1975), Symons
(1979), and Buss (1987) provides a foundation from which
specific evolutionary hypotheses about mate preferences
can be derived. [See also multiple book review of Symons’s Evolution of Human Sexuality, BBS 3(2) 1980 and
Hartung’s “Matrilineal Inheritance” BBS 8(4) 1985.]
1.1. Predictions from parental Investment and sexual
selection theory
Trivers (1972) posits that sexual selection is driven in part
by different levels of investment by males and females in
their offspring (Bateman 1948). In humans and other
mammals, male parental investment tends to be less than
female parental investment (Fisher 1930; Trivers 1972;
Williams 1975). Mammalian fertilization occurs internally within females, as does gestation. A copulation that
requires minimal male investment can produce a 9month investment by the female that is substantial in
terms of time, energy, resources, and foreclosed alternatives.
Investment, of course, does not begin with fertilization, nor does it end with parturition. Trivers describes
1
Buss: Sex differences
several forms of male investment. Males may provide
mates with food, find or defend territories, defend the
female against aggressors, and feed and protect the
young. Human males may also provide opportunities for
learning, they may transfer status, power, or resources,
and they may aid their offspring in forming reciprocal
alliances. These forms of male investment, when provided, tend to decrease the investment disparities between males and females (Trivers 1972, p. 142).
Trivers’s theory proposes that the sex investing more in
offspring (typically the female) will be selected to exert
stronger preferences about mating partners. This greater
choosiness by the more heavily investing sex exists because greater reproductive costs are associated with indiscriminate mating and greater benefits are associated
with exerting a choice. The costs of less discriminating
mating will be lower for the sex investing less and the
benefits will be greater. In species where investment in
offspring by males and females is equivalent, the sexes are
expected to be equally discriminating in their choice of
mating partners (Trivers 1985).
What mate characteristics might be predicted on theoretical grounds in the selection preferences of females?
In species with male parental investment, such as Homo
sapiens (Alexander & Noonan 1979), females should seek
to mate with males who have the ability and willingness to
provide resources related to parental investment such as
food, shelter, territory, and protection. Trivers’s prediction should apply only in contexts where resources can be
accrued, monopolized, and defended, where males tend
to control such resources, and where male variance in
resource acquisition is sufficiently high (Emlen & Oring
1977; Trivers 1972). The hypothesis that females will
mate preferentially with males bearing greater gifts,
holding better territories, or displaying higher rank has
been confirmed empirically in many nonhuman species
(Calder 1967; Lack 1940; Trivers 1985; see also Betzig et
al. 1988).
These resources can provide (a) immediate material
advantage to the female and her offspring, (b) enhanced
reproductive advantage for offspring through acquired
social and economic benefits, and (c) genetic reproductive advantage for the female and her offspring if variation
in the qualities that lead to resource acquisition is partly
heritable.
Among humans, resources typically translate into earning capacity. This suggests that females will value characteristics in potential mates that are associated with increased earning capacity, such as ambition and industriousness (Barron 1963; Willerman 1979). These premises,
combined with conditions of resource defensibility and
high variance in male resource acquisition, produce a
specific prediction: Females, more than males, should
value attributes in potential mates such as ambition,
industriousness, and earning capacity that signal the
possession or likely acquisition of resources.
1.2. Predictions based on fertility and reproductive
value
For males more than for females, reproduction is limited
by access to reproductively valuable or fertile mates
(Symons 1979; Trivers 1972; Williams 1975). Reproductive value is defined actuarially in units of expected future
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1989) 12:1
reproduction – the extent to which persons of a given age
and sex will contribute, on average, to the ancestry of
future generations (Fisher 1930). Fertility is defined as
the probability of present reproduction. In human
females, reproductive value typically peaks in the midteens and declines monotonically thereafter with age.
Fertility typically peaks in the early 20s and shows a
similar decrement with age (Thornhill & Thornhill 1983).
The difference between fertility and reproductive value
may be illustrated by contrasting two females, aged 13
and 23. The younger female would have higher reproductive value than the older one because, actuarially, her
future reproduction is expected to be higher. In contrast,
the 23-year-old female would be more fertile than the 13year-old because the current probability of reproduction
is higher for the 23-year-old.
Both fertility and reproductive value differ across
cultures and are affected by factors such as cultural
norms, contraceptive practices, and differences in agespecific mortality. In all cultures, however, female fertility and reproductive value are strongly age-dependent
(Williams 1975). Thus, age provides a powerful cue to
female reproductive capacity – a cue that can be inferred
through physical and behavioral attributes or with veridical use of counting systems.
Males should prefer attributes in potential mates associated with reproductive value or fertility, depending on
whether males in human evolutionary history have tended to seek long-term or short-term mating partners (Buss
1987; Symons 1979; Williams 1975). Specifically, if males
in our evolutionary past have tended to seek short-term
mating partners, selection should have favored male
preferences for females in their early 20s who show cues
that are positively correlated with fertility. If males in our
evolutionary past have tended to seek long-term mating
partners, selection should have favored preferences for
females in their mid-teens who show cues indicative of
high reproductive value. Evolutionary theorists differ on
which of these hypotheses they judge to be most likely.
Symons (1979) argues that males have been selected to
find most attractive those females of high reproductive
value. Williams (1975), in contrast, predicts a compromise preference between reproductive value and fertility
due to the existence of both long-term mating bonds and
some possibility of divorce and extrapair matings.
Features of physical appearance associated with youth
– such as smooth skin, good muscle tone, lustrous hair,
and full lips – and behavioral indicators of youth – such as
high energy level and sprightly gait – have been hypothesized to provide the strongest cues to female reproductive capacity (Symons 1979; Williams 1975). Sexual attraction and standards of beauty are hypothesized to have
evolved to correspond to these features. On this account,
males failing to prefer females possessing attributes that
signal high reproductive capacity would, on average,
leave fewer offspring than would males who do prefer to
mate with females displaying these attributes.
Female reproductive success, in contrast to male reproductive success, is not as closely linked with obtaining
fertile mates. Male fertility, to the degree that it is valued
by females, is less steeply age-graded from puberty on
than is female fertility and therefore cannot be assessed as
accurately from physical appearance. Physical appearance, therefore, should be less central to female mate
Buss: Sex differences
preferences than to male mate preferences. These premises lead to specific predictions: Males, more than
females, will value relative youth and physical attractiveness in potential mates because of their links with
fertility and reproductive value.
Predicting that males will value physical attractiveness
in females because of its association with reproductive
capacity does not negate or deny the existence of cultural
and other determinants of standards for attractiveness.
Ford and Beach (1951) have documented cultural variability in standards for female attractiveness along the
dimensions of plump versus slim body build, light versus
dark skin, and emphasis on particular features such as the
eyes, ears, or genitals. Symons (1979) suggested that
regularity of features, proximity to the population average, and association with status might also have an important influence on attractiveness standards (see also Buss
1987).
The predicted sex differences in mate preferences for
youth and physical attractiveness, however, are expected
to transcend cultural variations and other determinants of
beauty standards. The physical and behavioral cues that
signal youth and health and are regarded as attractive
should be linked with reproductive capacity among
human females in all cultures. These sex differences are
predicted to be species-typical among Homo sapiens,
despite cross-cultural variations in absolute age preferences, the presence or absence of counting systems to
mark age, or culture-specific criteria for female attractiveness that are not linked with reproductive capacity.
experiences of her mate. This sexual asymmetry yields a
specific prediction: Males will value chastity in a potential
mate more than will females. Evidence limited to a few
cultures exists regarding the importance of a mate’s lack
of prior sexual experience in mate preferences (Borgerhoff Mulder 1988; Dickemann 1981).
It should be noted that this predicted sex difference
would be compromised if prior sexual experience by a
male provided a cue that signaled diversion of resources
away from the female and her offspring (Buss 1988b). To
the degree that prior sexual experience by males provides
this cue, females should also value chastity in a potential
mate.
In sum, three clusters of sex differences in mate preferences were predicted, based on an evolutionary account
of differing male and female reproductive strategies. A
woman’s “mate value” (Symons 1987a) should be determined more by her reproductive capacity. Youth and
physical appearance, as powerful cues to this capacity,
should be more highly valued by men. Chastity should
also be valued because it functions to increase a males
probability of paternity. A man’s “mate value” is determined less by fertility and more by the external resources
he can provide. Characteristics indicative of one’s potential to provide resources, such as earning capacity, ambition, and industriousness, should receive more emphasis
in female mate preferences. The following study was
designed to test these hypotheses in 37 cultures differing
widely in ecology, location, racial and ethnic composition, religious orientation, political inclination, and
nature of mating system.
7.3. Prediction based on paternity probability
In mating systems where males invest parentally, selection should favor males who act to insure that their
investment is directed toward their own offspring and not
the offspring of another male. Sexual jealousy is one
mechanism that has been proposed to increase paternity
probability (Daly et al. 1982). Male sexual jealousy presumably functions to guard a mate and to dissuade intrasexual competitors, thus lowering the likelihood of alien
insemination. Daly et al. (1982) and Daly & Wilson (1988)
present compelling evidence that many homicides and
much male violence stem from male sexual jealousy.
Another possible paternity probability mechanism is
valuation of chastity in a potential mate (Dickemann
1981). Males who preferred chaste females in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness, ceteris paribus,
presumably enjoyed greater reproductive success than
males who were indifferent to the sexual contact that a
potential mate had with other males. Prior to the use of
modern contraceptive devices, chastity of a potential
mate would provide a cue to paternity confidence. Assuming some temporal stability to behavioral proclivities,
chastity would also provide a cue to the future fidelity of a
selected mate. A male failing to express such a preference
would risk wasting the time and effort involved in
courtship and would risk investing in offspring that were
not his (Daly & Wilson 1983; Dickemann 1981).
The association between chastity and probability of
parenthood, however, shows a sexual asymmetry. In our
environment of evolutionary adaptedness, maternity was
never in doubt. A female could be sure that her putative
children were her own, regardless of the prior sexual
2. Methods
2.1. Samples
Thirty-seven samples were obtained from 33 countries
located on six continents andfiveislands, with a total N of
10,047 (see Table 1). The samples range in mean age from
16.96 (New Zealand) to 28.71 (West Germany), with an
overall unit-weighted mean of 23.05. Sample sizes vary
from a low of 55 (Iran) to highs of 500 (mainland China),
566 (Taiwan, Republic of China), 630 (Brazil), 1,083
(West Germany), and 1,491 (mainland United States). All
samples but one have Ns exceeding 100. The mean
sample size for the 37 samples is 272. Obviously, greater
confidence can be placed in the results from the large
samples; results from all samples are presented for
completeness.
The samples obtained cannot be viewed as representative of the populations in each country. In general, rural,
less-educated, and lower levels of socioeconomic status
are underrepresented, although there are many exceptions, such as the Soviet Estonian, Gujarati Indian, South
African Zulu, Venezuelan, and Santa Catarina Brazilian
samples. The 37 samples do represent a tremendous
diversity of geographic, cultural, political, ethnic, religious, racial, and economic groups; combined, they are
the largest ever obtained on mate preferences.
Sampling techniques varied widely across countries. In
Estonia, for example, one subsample consisted of all
couples applying for a marriage license at a certain location within a given time span, whereas another Estonian
subsample consisted of 200 high school students. The
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1989) 12:1
Buss: Sex differences
Table 1. Sample sizes and mean ages
Sample size
Sample
Total
African
Nigeria
S. Africa (whites)
S. Africa (Zulu)
Zambia
Male
Age of males
Age5 Of
females
Female
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
172
128
100
119
117
47
52
70
55
81
48
49
23.36
20.88
25.30
25.67
3.39
2.17
9.40
7.42
21.13
19.44
23.53
22.60
1.38
1.28
6.18
4.17
500
247
143
55
473
265
103
88
28
205
235
144
55
27
268
4.87
12.46
3.16
5.14
4.26
3.79
1.50
1.85
22.46
24.90
22.76
22.74
23.29
21.50
19.37
20.54
5.29
10.92
3.19
5.70
3.65
3.23
0.88
1.63
Asian
China
India
Indonesia
Iran
Israel (Jewish)
Israel (Palestinian)
Japan
Taiwan
109
54
55
259
566
106
288
153
278
23.37
30.46
23.52
24.14
25.52
23.51
20.05
21.13
European-Eastern
Bulgaria
Estonian S.S.R.
Poland
Yugoslavia
269
303
240
140
127
153
122
66
142
150
118
74
22.28
19.12
21.98
21.53
6.16
3.50
1.97
1.55
23.06
18.32
21.44
20.72
7.04
2.64
1.51
1.33
European-Western
Belgium
France
Finland
Germany-West
Great Britain
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Sweden
145
55
55
530
46
67
55
46
177
67
44
89
240
67
80
83
23.80
25.27
23.87
28.29
20.87
20.72
19.60
27.83
22.74
22.25
22.89
29.79
7.29
4.58
10.81
3.92
2.50
1.50
5.32
3.86
4.10
2.58
9.88
21.38
25.83
24.60
29.14
21.09
18.71
19.27
25.96
21.65
22.46
22.75
26.70
5.49
100
90
91
149
553
84
65
67
6.23
191
204
1083
130
132
122
101
417
134
124
172
7.95
5.29
12.40
5.38
1.46
1.31
5.39
3.31
4.46
3.59
8.20
North American
Canada (English)
Canada (French)
USA (Mainland)
USA (Hawaii)
101
105
1491
179
56
34
639
66
45
71
852
113
20.89
26.00
19.98
23.79
2.98
6.32
3.45
7.23
23.05
25.17
20.37
22.76
6.84
8.16
4.63
6.20
Oceanian
Australia
New Zealand
280
151
78
75
202
76
25.06
17.00
8.50
0.79
23.12
16.92
8.38
0.81
South American
Brazil
Colombia
Venezuela
6…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment