Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

Question 1

What is the evolutionary explanation?

Answer 1

The Evolutionary explanation for sexual selection was based upon
Darwin’s survival of the fittest principles which were later developed by Fisher.

Genes that confer a reproductive advantage over others will increase the
individual’s chances of mating and passing on the genes, to ensure the survival
of those genes.

Question 2

What’s intrasexual selection?

Answer 2

• explains how individuals of one sex aim to out- compete other members of the same sex, in qualities such as strength and beauty
• the purpose is to increase their chances to reproduce with the opposite sex. This
  leads to male-female dimorphism which is the accentuation of secondary
  sexual characteristics in those with greater reproductive fitness, leading to
  differences between males and females

Question 3

What’s intersexual selection?

Answer 3

• explains that members of one sex evolve preferences for desirable qualities in potential mates. -People who possess these qualities e.g. attractiveness and strength gain a mating advantage and are more “saleable” over those who don’t.
• Noe and Hammerstein (1995) proposed that mating is a biological marketplace.
  -It is proposed that men and women use different strategies when choosing their partners, e.g. sneak-copulation in males.

Question 4

A03 - Research

Answer 4

• Research support for the evolutionary explanation for partner preferences
  comes from Buss (1989) who conducted a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33
  countries.
• He asked questions relating to age and a variety of attributes that
  evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference.
  -He found that female respondents placed greater value on resource-related characteristics,
  such as good financial prospects, ambition and industriousness, than males did.
• Males valued reproductive capacity in terms of good looks and chastity, and
  preferred younger mates, more than females did.
• These findings support predictions about partner preference derived from sexual selection theory.
• Furthermore, the findings can be applied across vastly different cultures, reflecting
  human preferences which are not primarily dependent upon cultural
  influences.
  -However, we should be cautious when applying the findings from a survey as respondents often answer in a socially desirable way and often do not answer truthfully.

Question 5

A03 - Theoretical Support

Answer 5

• It has been suggested that males and females put different amounts of
  resources into offspring called parental investment and that this has shaped the
  different types of qualities that men and women find attractive in a potential
  partner.
• The female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other
  resources before, during and after the birth of her offspring.
  -Both sexes are choosy, because both stand to lose if they invest resources in substandard
  partners.
  -However, the consequences of making a wrong choice of partner are much more serious for the female than for the male.
  -Therefore, the female’s optimum mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources. This leaves the males competing for the opportunity to mate
  with the fertile female.
• This support not only bears true for human relationships but can also be seen in the animal kingdom, strengthening the evolutionary theory.

Question 6

A03 - Cultural Differences

Answer 6

Bernstein (2015) - gender differences in mate preference patterns might stem
from cultural traditions as well as social and economic factors, rather than being the
result of only evolved characteristics.
EG, the fact that women have been denied
economic and political power in many cultures might account for their tendency to
rely on the security and economic resources provided by men.
-An analysis of 37 cultures (Kasser and Sharma, 1999) showed that women valued potential mates’
access to resources far more in those cultures where women’s status and educational opportunities were sharply limited.
-This suggests that although findings such as those in Buss’s study may show potential evidence of evolutionary forces at work in mate selection, we should not underestimate the role of social and
economic factors in establishing mate preference patterns.