Mate preference: 35 years of cross-cultural data, examined

David Buss's 1989 paper "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures" surveyed roughly 10,000 individuals across 37 nations on what they valued in a long-term partner. The findings became the foundational empirical claim of evolutionary psychology in the romantic-pairing domain.

Across all 37 cultures, men prioritized physical attractiveness in partners more than women did. Across all 37 cultures, women prioritized resource potential (earning power, ambition) more than men did. The universality of the pattern was taken as evidence for evolved sex-specific mate preferences (Buss, 1989).

The 35 years since have refined the picture. The basic finding replicates. The interpretation is more contested.

1. What replicates

The cross-cultural sex differences in stated mate preferences have replicated reliably in subsequent studies. Schwarz and Hassebrauck (2012) replicated Buss's design in a substantially larger sample with similar results. The 2020 update with more diverse cultures confirmed: men's higher weighting of attractiveness and women's higher weighting of resources is found nearly universally (Walter et al., 2020).

The differences are also small. The effect sizes (Cohen's d) are typically in the 0.3-0.5 range — meaningful but not large. The overlap between male and female preference distributions is substantial.

2. The cultural variation

While the direction of the sex difference is cross-culturally consistent, the magnitude varies substantially:

• Gender-egalitarian societies show smaller sex differences in mate preferences
• Resource-scarce societies show larger differences
• The differences in stated preference do not perfectly translate to actual partner choices

Eagly and Wood's 1999 reanalysis argued that the cultural variation pattern is more consistent with social role theory — preferences reflecting current economic and social structures — than with strict evolutionary explanation. Where women have less access to resources independently, they value resources in partners more; where they have more access, they value them less (Eagly & Wood, 1999).

This isn't a refutation of evolutionary explanations. It does mean the data are consistent with multiple causal stories.

3. The stated vs. revealed preference gap

A consistent finding across mate-preference studies: what people say they want in a partner doesn't fully predict who they actually pair with. Studies of speed-dating, online dating, and longitudinal couple formation show:

• Physical attractiveness predicts attraction at first encounter for both men and women, more equally than stated preferences suggest
• Earning potential predicts long-term partner choice for both men and women, with smaller sex differences than stated preferences imply
• The most reliable predictor of long-term partnership for both sexes is similarity in values, education, and background (Hitsch, Hortaçsu, & Ariely, 2010)

The gap between stated preference and revealed choice has been one of the more consistent findings of the past decade. People are not always accurate reporters of their own decision processes.

4. The same-sex partnership question

Mate-preference research has historically focused on heterosexual pairings. Studies of same-sex partner preferences find:

• Gay men show preference patterns similar to heterosexual men (high attractiveness weighting)
• Lesbian women show preference patterns similar to heterosexual women (less attractiveness emphasis)
• The patterns appear to follow sex rather than orientation

This is one of the more interesting findings for the evolutionary debate. If the patterns were purely about reproductive strategy, same-sex relationships should show different preferences. They don't, on average. This is consistent with both evolutionary and social-role explanations under refined versions.

5. The honest summary

Cross-cultural mate-preference research is robust. The sex differences are real but moderate. The interpretation — evolutionary, social-role, or some combination — remains contested.

For practical purposes: the differences are small enough that broad generalizations about "what men want" or "what women want" miss most of the actual variance. Individual partner choice is much better predicted by individual values and circumstances than by sex-typical averages. The headline-grabbing sex differences are real at the population level but a poor guide at the individual level.