There are many apparent differences in preferences for potential partners, evident in Buss' article on "Sex Preferences in Human Mate Differences."" The study is not entirely correct as it under represents certain groups within society, though it does provide a basic guideline of what males and females look for in potential mates. It is necessary to compare Buss' conclusions to those of psychologists with different theories, such as Eagly and Wood to highlight the importance of evidence and reason in the basis of their arguments.
.
Buss deals with the idea that human mate preferences have developed over time as part of evolutionary psychology. From a study done across thirty seven samples, conclusions about sex differences in human mate preferences have been obtained to clearly demonstrate the vast differences as well as similarities in choice of mates for male and female subjects. The study examines parental investment theories and how sexual selection is driven by different levels of investment by males and females in their offspring. This notion is propelled by studies showing that males typically have less investment in their offspring then do females, who exert stronger preferences about mating partners. Buss uses Trivers' investigation into indiscriminate mating and the outcomes associated with making a choice, such as females preferring partners with greater material resources or socio-economic advantages. This argument is based on research done internationally, throughout thirty three countries across all continents, where subjects were required to express their mate preferences through a series of techniques. These techniques included .
Biographical Data: obtaining the subjects age, sex, marital status, religion and number of siblings.
Individual Expression: what age they preferred to marry, preferences on age difference between self and spouse, how many children the subject desired and who the subject preferred to be older in the relationship.