Key Study: Buss et al. (1989)
Aim: To investigate evolutionary explanations for partner preferences using a cross-cultural large-scale survey
Participants: A total of 10,047 participants from 33 countries and 5 islands aged from 19.96 years to 28.71 years (mean age = 23.05 years). A range of sampling techniques were used including:
- systematic sampling (e.g. in Venezuela every 5th household in one neighbourhood was sampled);
- self-selecting sampling (e.g. in West Germany participants were obtained via a newspaper advert);
- opportunity sampling (e.g. high school students who attended 3 schools in New Zealand)
Procedure: Self-reports were conducted either via a written questionnaire or having questions read aloud by a researcher (some rural populations were unable to read or write). The questions dealt with attitudes towards partner preference e.g. preferred age of partner, how important chastity or fidelity was; the importance of marriage and children.
The participants were also asked to rank a list of characteristics that they would look for in a partner.
Results:
- 97% of the females in the sample valued ‘good financial prospects’ which (apart from Spain) was higher than the males in the sample
- 92% of the females valued ‘ambition and industriousness’ more than men (but not in Spain, Columbia or the Zulu sample)
- Males across all of the sample stated a preference for a younger partner with an average preferred age difference of 2.66 years; females showed a preference for an older partner and to be married at a younger age than males preferred (25.39 years as opposed to 27.49 years)
- Males across the sample rated ‘good looks’ higher than females did and 62% of males rated chastity as a desirable quality in a partner (this was particularly true in China, Iran and India)
- The majority of Western, individualistic samples thought that chastity was ‘irrelevant’
Conclusion: Females value financial security and an older partner more than males do; males value physical appearance and youth more than females do; both males and females appear to value partners who will give them a selective advantage in terms of reproduction; there are distinct cultural differences in partner preference
Evaluation of Buss (1989)
Strengths
- The use of a large sample representing so many countries and cultures guarantees good external validity which means that the results can be easily generalised
- The questionnaires for each country were translated using three translators (to translate from English; to translate to English; to resolve discrepancies and ensure all terms were gender neutral) which increases reliability as it ensures consistency across the measure
Weaknesses
- The limited age range of the sample does not represent the views and attitudes of older people so it is only partially insightful
- Some of the responses may have been due to social desirability bias, particularly in cultures where men must appear to be ‘macho’ i.e. the responses may not actually match the true feelings of all of the participants, which decreases the validity of the findings
Key terms:
- Evolutionary
- Partner preference
- Selective advantage