Buss, D. M. (2008). Attractive Women Want It All: Good Genes, Economic Investment,
Parenting Proclivities, and Emotional Commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134146.
Summary by Jennifer Busico, Renee Egizi, and Laura Jimenez
For Dr. Mill’s Psyc 310 class, Fall 2008
There are thought to be different qualities females look for in a man depending on the
type of relationship they are seeking. Women who are seeking a short term relationship tend
to focus on a man’s physical characteristics, while a women looking for a long term
relationship focuses on a man’s resource potential. Past researchers have found that mate
preferences are related to: operational sex ratio, cultural norms surrounding premarital sex,
menstrual cycle, age, and mating system. What remains apparent is that women often
experience a trade-off between good gene fitness and good investment; women “cannot get it
all.” Buss purposed that women value four clusters of characteristics in men: good gene
indicators, good resource indicators, good parenting indicators, and good partner indicators.
Men who have all four clusters of characteristics are rare, almost impossible to find. Buss
notes that men who do come close to containing all four clusters, engage in extra-pair
copulation, preventing them from showing good partner indicators. Based on evolution, a
male’s fitness is determined by the number of offspring he sires. Buss hypothesized that
women high in mate value, compared to those lower in mate value, should impose higher
standards for a suite of desirable characteristics.
There were 214 individuals, 107 women and 107 men, who volunteered. A prerequisite
for joining the study was that couples had to have been married less that one year at the time
of testing. Experimenters used the Midwest United States’ public record of marriage license
to contact the couples. Those couples that replied were offered $25 for their participation.
The mean age of the females was 24.78 years and men 25.46 years.
There were 3 assessments performed by the experimenters. First, participants were
initially sent a questionnaire via mail, where they were to indicate their own attractiveness
level. Second, participants came to the laboratory and engaged in a battery of questionnaires:
Factors in Choosing a Mate, Preferences Concerning Potential Mates, Family and Marital
Preferences, and Goals Wanted in a Partner. Lastly, the each individual was interviewed
separately as a way for the interviewer to assess the physical attractiveness of the individuals.
Through the entire process the experimenters assured the participants that confidentiality
would be upheld.
The results revealed that there was a positive correlation between high female
attractiveness and preference for the 4 cluster of characteristics in men. High attractive
females had a stronger preference for good gene indicators such as, physical appearance, sex
appeal, and masculine. High attractive females had a strong preference for good resource
indicators such as, potential income, college degree, and earning capacity. High attractive
females had a stronger preference for good parenting indicators such as, desire for home and
children and expression of emotions. High attractive females had a stronger preference for
good partner indicators such as, loving and loyal. Lastly, for men, there was no correlation
between attractiveness and mate preferences. Men are indiscriminate, they love all women.
Attractive women express higher standards of preference for men. Though the
experiment was thorough, there were some limitations. The sample included already-married
couples a single culture, the Midwest. To increase the external validity, couples of different
relationship status across the United States should be used. Secondly, there should be further
investigation as to why there was no variability in the preference of male intelligence by
women of low and high attractiveness. Lastly, these women preferred a man who contained
all 4 clusters of qualities, however, do women end up with these men or do they settle with
“average Joes.”
Outline
Intro
I.
Women Preferences
a. Long term relationships-resource potential
b. Short term relationships-physical attractiveness
c. Trade-off in mating b/c women “can’t get it all”
i. Gene fitness (physical attractiveness) and investment indicators
(resources, good dad material)
d. Experimenters purpose women value 4 clusters of characteristics for long-term
relationship, which no one man has
i. Good gene indicators (eg. Masculine, sex appeal, physical fitness)
ii. Good resource indicators (eg. Income, education, social status)
iii. Good parenting indicators (eg. Desire for children & emotional maturity)
iv. Good partner indicators (eg. Loyal & loving)
e. Hypothesis: women high in mate value should impose higher standards for a suite
of desirable characteristics
Materials and Methods
I.
II.
III.
Participants
a. 214 individuals (107 males and females)
b. Obtained from Public Record of Marriage license
c. Ages: males means-25.46 years, females means-24.78 years
d. Offered $25 for participation
Procedure
a. 3 assessments
i. Assessment completed at home
ii. Laboratory assessment: 4 questionnaires (Factors in Choosing a Mate,
Preferences Concerning Potential Mates, Family and Marital Preferences,
Goals Wanted in a Partner)
iii. Final Interview (interviewer randomly selected)
Results
a. Positive correlation: High female attractiveness and 4 category clusters
i. High attractive females had a stronger preference for good gene indicators
IV.
V.
ii. High attractive females had a stronger preference for good investment
indicators
iii. High attractive females had stronger preference for good parenting
indicators
iv. High attractive females had stronger preference for good partner indicators
b. No correlation: Male attractiveness and 4 category clusters (men desire all
women)
Discussion
a. Further research as to why intelligence, as a good gene indicator, did not vary
according to females attractiveness
b. Cross-cultural replication needed for external validity
c. Do high status women truly achieve a male containing all 4 cluster of qualities, or
do they adjust their preferences?
Critical Review
a. Pros
i. Thorough in examination (initial assessment at home, 4 questionnaires in
laboratory, final interview)
ii. Focused on young contemporary women (24 years-old)
iii. Confidentiality assurance
iv. Layout of journal (clear and precise)
b. Cons
i. No random selection
ii. Small sample (107 males/females) can’t generalize
iii. Participants belief in mate containing 4 cluster of qualities is contradicting
(no man has it all)
iv. Did not provide sample of questionnaires
v. Did not go in depth regarding the non-present correlation of males
vi. Defining of terms ambiguous
vii. No in-depth analysis; simply stating results
viii. No analysis on less attractive women
Test Questions
1) True or False: Based on this study, do high attractive females adjust their preferences for
male qualities?
2) True or False: Males do not have a preference for female attractiveness?
3) True or False: There is a difference between low and high attractive female’s preferences
on male intelligence?
4) Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of Male preference?
a. A loving partner
b. A house
c. A heterosexual
d. Social Status
5) How long had the participants been married?
a. 1 year
b. Newlyweds
c. 5 years
d. 2 years
6) How many assessment(s) did the participants encounter during the experiment?
a. 7
b. 1
c. 3
d. 4