Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection.

Abstract

In this article, we extend the research by Buss and Barnes (1986) on preferences in human mate selection. Buss and Barnes explored human mate preferences by identifying major dimensions of preferences, sex differences in selection preferences, and the relations between mate preferences and characteristics of obtained partners. To examine these questions, Buss and Barnes studied two heterosexual samples. In discussing their findings, they specified two general theoretical orientations to understanding human mate preferences, the first based on social factors and the second based on principles of evolutionary biology. The relative adequacy of these two perspectives was not evaluated because as Buss and Barnes noted, the two sets of hypotheses are not inherently incompatible. In this extension of their research, we examine mate preferences in samples of both heterosexual and homosexual couples, using variation in sexual orientation to evaluate further the adequacy of social and evolutionary theories in explaining human mate preferences. Although some aspects of partner preferences are consistent with both theoretical orientations, we demonstrate that other patterns are explained more adequately by a social perspective.

Is the Partner Who Decides to Divorce More Attractive? A Comparison Between Initiators and Noninitiators

“…This fact corresponds with the theory saying that men offer social status and women physical beauty (e.g. Berry & Miller, 2001;Buss, 1989;Howard et al, 1987).…”

“…Berry & Miller, 2001;Buss, 1989;Howard, Blumstein & Schwartz, 1987) and that, in opposite, women would prefer men who had an attractive socio-economic status (Berscheid & Walster, 1974;Klein, 1991;Townsend & Wasserman, 1997). These differences in partner preferences had been explained in terms of social role theory (e.g.…”

Preferences for Facial and Vocal Masculinity in Homosexual Men: The Role of Relationship Status, Sexual Restrictiveness, and Self-Perceived Masculinity

“…It has been reported that homosexual men show male-typical mating psychology, including interest in casual sex and visual sexually explicit material (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, Gladue 1994); they also report male-typical mate retention behavior (Vanderlaan, Vasey 2008), prefer potential partners who are younger than themselves (Hayes 2001, Silverthorne, Quinsey 2000 and, again similarly to heterosexual men, value physical attractiveness in their potential partners more than heterosexual women (Howard, Blumstein, Schwartz 1987). On the other hand, homosexual men prefer as partners men who describe themselves as rather masculine, and this is dependent on their own level of masculinity (Bailey, Kim, Hills, Linsenmeier 1997, Muscarella 2002.…”

It is not all about the Benjamins: Understanding preferences for mates with resources

“…For instance, studies have examined preferences for traits like ''ambitiousness'' (Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1987;Hoyt & Hudson, 1981;Hudson & Henze, 1969;McGinnis, 1958), ''good earning capacity'' (Buss, 1989;Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000), ''good financial prospects'' (Buss, 1989), ''educated'' (Greitmeyer, 2005;Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990;Lance, 1998), having high ''social status,'' ''social level, '' or ''prestige'' (Feingold, 1992;Townsend & Levy, 1990;Townsend & Wasserman, 1998) -traits thought to be related to one's ability to generate income. Consistently, women value mates with these traits more than men do (Townsend, 1993;Townsend & Roberts, 1993).…”