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 Tr

The two articles are quite different in their approaches to the issue of sex differences in human mate preferences as a result of their interpretations of the results they found. Where evolutionary psychologists believe that the division of labour in today’s society is based on the behaviour or our ancestors, social structural psychologists believe that our behaviour is based on the structure of society and its views on the equality of the sexes. This example is just one of many of the differences that occur in the two readings. Possible explanations for these different views include the context of each psychologist. For example, Buss is a male evolutionary psychologist, who grew up with a strong background in beliefs that our behaviour is a result of how we have adapted to our environment. In an interview with the evolutionist, Buss says, “the notion that we are our evolved mechanisms is alien. To think otherwise requires a leap of faith.” Eagly and Wood interpret the results differently perhaps because they are both females who believe strongly in equality for all, and would therefore see the differences in preferences as a result of the standards of today’s society. A prime example being the preferred age of females at marriage, influenced by a more career-oriented female than in earlier times. It is also important to consider the ambiguity of the study, as it relies wholly on the opinions of the subjects involved, but does not allow them to express their preferences fully, as in the ranking of desirability of the characteristics. The characteristics have already been listed for the participants, and therefore are not representative of what they find most important, and exactly how much difference there is between the importance of these characteristics. In order to examine exactly what people find desirable, it is essential to have them list their own preferred characteristics and to elaborate on how necessary they find each one in a potential partner. The other major issue with this study is that Buss’ study targets a narrow range of people, and does not represent the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Eagly and Wood on the other hand have studied a broader variety of people in their analysis of the advertisements, which were volunteered without the influence of knowing they were being used for research, therefore making them more natural and representative of what the subjects really want. The main problem with this type of research is the validity of the advertisements.

7. Men are more helpful in short-term interactions with strangers

9. Women report more life satisfaction and happiness than men.

Eagly and Wood, on the oth

Some topics in this essay:
Eagly Wood, Individual Expression, Eagly Wood’s, Buss Trivers’, Mate Differences”, Content Analysis, Biographical Data, , human mate, Overall Buss, mate preferences, Surveys Subjects, eagly wood, human mate preferences, social structural, buss’ article, today’s society, human mate preferencing, sex differences, women seek, males females, differences human, differences human mate, eagly wood hand, differences mate preferences,