David Buss is an evolutionary psychologist, author and educator. He is credited as being one of the founding fathers of evolutionary psychology. Buss is most well-known for his work on human sexuality and mating strategies, but has also done extensive work in the areas of personality and individual differences, social emotions, intimate partner violence, stalking, and murder. He is also one of the most highly cited psychologists in the world.

David Buss

David Buss

David Buss’s ChildhoodEducational BackgroundAct Frequency TheorySexual Strategies TheoryStrategic Interference TheoryError Management TheoryHomicide Adaptation TheoryDavid Buss’s Books, Awards and Accomplishments

David Buss’s Childhood

Educational Background

Act Frequency Theory

Sexual Strategies Theory

Strategic Interference Theory

Error Management Theory

Homicide Adaptation Theory

David Buss’s Books, Awards and Accomplishments

David Buss’s  Childhood

David M. Buss was born on April 14, 1953, in Indianapolis, Indiana. Both of his parents were well-educated, with his mother, Edith Buss, having earned a Masters degree in special education. His father, Arnold Buss, was a distinguished professor of psychology at several universities and is now professor emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin.

Despite the academic focus of his parents, Buss actually showed little interest in education during his high school years. At age 17, he dropped out of school to work the night shift at a truck stop, pumping gas. After a few altercations at his workplace, Buss decided to return to school so he could find a better way to earn a living. He began taking night classes and eventually obtained his high school diploma.

After completing graduate studies, Buss was offered a position at Harvard University as an assistant professor of psychology. He was promoted to associate professor in 1985, before moving to the University of Michigan where he assumed a similar role. In 1991, he was promoted to the rank of professor. Buss’ final move came in 1996, when he joined the faculty at the University of Texas at Austin, where he has remained ever since.

According to Buss and Craik, personality traits are merelydescriptivecategories or labels that summarize general trends in behavior. They indicate the frequency with which certain acts have been performed in the past. Against this background, personality traits are nothing more than ‘act frequencies.’ Saying that someone is aggressive simply means that the individual has demonstrated several aggressive acts over a specified period of time.

Long-term mating strategies involve a high degree of investment of both time and resources, while short term mating strategies typically involve fleeting sexual encounters.  Although males and females engage in both forms of mating, men are said to devote more of their efforts to short-term strategies, whereas women are more likely to pursue long-term strategies.

Despite the suggestion that women are more likely to pursue long-term partners, Buss and Schmitt identified several situations in which they may benefit from short-term mating. For example, this form of mating could allow women to obtain valuable resources for themselves and their children, provide insurance against loss of a stable partner, or give them an opportunity to judge how suitable a mate would be in the long-term. According to SST, however, even when women pursue short-term strategies, their primary goal is not to obtain a large number of mates, but to find mates of superior genetic quality.

Although men are said to have a greater desire than women for a large number of mates, they may also choose to pursue long-term mating for several reasons. For example, this form of mating might allow a man to: (1) monopolize a woman’s reproductive resources for the entire course of her life, (2) ensure the genetic quality of his children, and (3) benefit from division of labor and from long-term alliances with his partner’s relatives.

According to SST, even though males and females both engage in long-term mating depending on the context, they differ in terms of what they look for in a long-term partner. For example, men are said to place a high value on youth and physical attractiveness since these signal fertility. Women, on the other hand, look for indicators that the man will be both willing and able to provide for her and her children (eg., social and financial status, maturity, ambition, kindness and generosity).

In addition to describinggenderdifferences in mating strategies, SST also attempts to explainindividualdifferences in mating preferences. Among males, for example, status and prestige were identified as factors that predict mating strategies. In ancient cultures, men with higher status and prestige often had many wives. Similarly today, men of higher social ranking are more likely to have a larger number of mates and rely more on short-term strategies than their lower ranking counterparts. The same holds true for men who have a high degree of intelligence, ambition, popularity, maturity, athleticism, strength, self-esteem, and physical attractiveness.

Among women, there is some evidence that female mating strategies shift over the course of the lifespan, with short-term mating being more common during adolescence. Women raised in father-absent households have also been found to be more likely to engage in short-term strategies, especially if a step-father had been present in the home.

Other factors that influence whether an individual will pursue his or her preferred mating strategy include opportunity, personality traits, the male to female ratio in the available mating pool, cultural norms, parental influence, and changes in life circumstances (eg., divorce).

Given that men and women generally have different mating goals, strategic interference of these goals result in different patterns of emotional response. For example, women display greater distress than men when their partners (1) desire sex more quickly and frequently than they would like, and (2) become emotionally invested in another person. Men, on the other hand, become more distressed than women when their mates delay sex and when they engage in sexual infidelity.

Buss attributes the tendency to err on the side of caution to our evolutionary history. Throughout the ages, our ancestors would have had to face numerous situations such as the one described above. Buss contends that an “adaptive bias” developed over time, making us more likely to choose the least costly option(s) when faced with uncertainty.

Just as humans developed adaptations to kill, they also developed adaptations to defend against being killed. These defenses increase the costs of homicidal behavior since the aggressor risks being injured or killed himself. Anti-homicide adaptations therefore serve as a deterrent for would-be killers. Without these defensive strategies, Buss and Duntley suggest that homicide rates around the world would be much higher.

Applications of Buss’ Theories

The insights derived from Buss’ sexual strategies theory can also help to enhance mutual understanding in relationships, and potentially assist in overcoming relationship conflicts. Additionally, individuals may infer from Buss’ theory how they can enhance their attractiveness to members of the opposite sex, as well as how they can retain existing mates.

Criticisms of Buss’ Theories

The act frequency approach to personality traits has often been criticized for being strictly descriptive, as opposed to explanatory. By focusing only on the frequency of acts, the approach neglects the many other factors that influence whether or not, and how often, these acts are performed. These include the external context, as well as internal motivational states. As such, the AFA is said to contribute very little to the understanding of personality processes and differences.

Other critics contend that the AFA introduces nothing new to the study of personality, since similar procedures were already being used for constructing psychometric scales. Furthermore, these critics argue that because the AFA does not include rigorous procedures for establishing validity, measurement tools based on this approach are psychometrically unsound.

In the case of the sexual strategies theory, Buss himself acknowledged that while the theory accounts for sexdifferencesin mating, it is quite limited in its ability to explain sexualcommonalitiesbetween men and women. Another criticism of the theory is that it largely ignores the influence of learning and social factors on sexuality, attributing sexual behavior primarily to inherent biological differences.

Buss has written and published over 300 research-based articles and has authored, co-authored and edited several books. His books include:

Throughout his career, Buss has earned numerous awards and accomplishments, some of which are listed below:

Buss is a member of several professional organizations, including the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, where he served as president from 2005 to 2007. He has also served on the editorial board of several scientific journals, including theJournal of Research in Personality,theJournal of Sex Research,American Psychologist, theJournal of Personality andSocial Psychology, as well as theJournal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Pschology. In 2013, he was rated as one of the 30 most influential psychologists alive, and in 2014, as one of the most eminent psychologists of the modern era..

Personal Life

Buss currently spends much of his time lecturing in the United States and abroad, as well as collaborating with others on cross-cultural research projects. His recreational interests include skiing, tennis, squash and disc golf. He describes himself as an “avid movie consumer and a voracious reader.”

Block, J. (1989). Critique of the act frequency approach to personality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 234-245.

Buss, David M. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/buss-david-m-1953

Buss, D. M. (n.d.).Evolutionary theories in psychology. Retrieved from https://openpress.usask.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/evolutionary-theories-in-psychology/

Buss, D. M. (2018).David M. Buss curriculum vitae. Retrieved from

https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2018/06/Buss-David-CV-2018-June.pdf

Buss, D. M. (2016).Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind(5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Buss: Evolutionary theory of personality. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/file/36237405/PSYC341-BussJ-SkinnerJ-Banduradocx/

Hampson, S. E. (1988).The construction of personality: An introduction(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolution and subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.),The science of subjective well-being(pp. 62-79). New York: The Guilford Press.

Homicide adaptation theory. (2012) In V.S. Ramachandran (Ed.),Encyclopedia of human behavior(2nd ed.).  Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.),The handbook of evolutionary psychology(pp. 258-291). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Related posts:40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)Evolutionary Psychologist Career (Salary + Duties + Interviews)David Berkowitz (Serial Killer Biography)David Kolb (Psychologist Biography)David McClelland Biography - Contributions To Psychology

Reference this article:Practical Psychology. (2020, March).David Buss (Psychologist Biography).Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/david-buss/.Practical Psychology. (2020, March). David Buss (Psychologist Biography). Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/david-buss/.Copy

Reference this article:

Practical Psychology. (2020, March).David Buss (Psychologist Biography).Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/david-buss/.Practical Psychology. (2020, March). David Buss (Psychologist Biography). Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/david-buss/.Copy

Copy