losing their partner ’s emotional fidelity. These predictions stem from the
men’s theoretical needs to be assured the offspring they raise are their own,
and from the women ’s desire that their partners continue to support them
and the offspring after reproduction. However, studies often fail to support
either of these predictions (Berman & Frazier, 2005; DeSteno, Bartlett,
Braverman, & Salovey, 2002; Harris, 2003).
In addition, it ’s entirely possible that instincts inherited from our ances-
tors are overshadowed by learned preferences we develop for romantic part-ners. The basic needs of animals in the wild may be quite different from the
needs of men and women in modern society. Many women probably prefer
a partner who spends time with them rather than one devoted to an ambi-tious climb up the corporate ladder. This is not to say that tendencies passed
down from our ancestors do not influence our choices. The research suggests
that they do. But our preferences for a physically attractive woman or awealthy man might play a relatively small role in this process. In one study
both men and women rated mutual love and affection the most important
consideration when selecting a romantic partner (Ben Hamida et al., 1998).
Common sense also tells us there are a number of exceptions to the rule.
Many women no doubt prefer a man who is more sensitive than dominant.
Many men prefer an older woman to a less mature partner. Evolutionary per-
sonality psychology also is limited to heterosexual mating choices. The pre-
diction of partner choice based on parental investment says little or nothing
about choices for lesbians and gay men. The analysis also may not apply to
women who are past their reproductive years and older men who are inter-
ested in an intimate relationship but not in raising a family.Sample Males Females
United States (Mainland) 1.08 1.96
United States (Hawaiian) 1.50 2.10
OceaniaAustralia 0.69 1.54
New Zealand 1.35 1.63
South America
Brazil 1.24 1.91Colombia 1.72 2.21Venezuela 1.66 2.26
Note: Participants rated on a scale from 0 (Unimportant) to 3 (Indispensable). 
Source: From Buss (1989).TABLE10.6
Importance of “Good Financial Prospects ”When Selecting a Mate
(continued)272 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach