Relationships Flashcards
What does evolutionary psychology say about partner preferences
- driven by sexual selection
- means males and females choose partners in order to maximise chances of reproductive success
- individuals with traits that maximise reproductive success are more likely to survive and pass on genes responsible for their success
Explain gametes in relation to the evolutionarily explanations of partner preferences
- males have gametes (sperm cells) which are able to reproduce quickly with little energy expenditure
- female gamete’s (eggs or ova) are much less plentiful are require far more energy to produce
- this difference (anisogamy) means males and females use distinct strategies to choose a partner
- males use intra-sexual selection and females use inter-sexual selection
What is intra-sexual selection
- where members of one sex (usually male) compete with one another for access to the other sex
- leads to male-female dimorphism => accentuation of secondary sexual characteristics in those with greater reproductive fitness
What does anisogamy suggest about intra-sexual selection
- suggests a male’s best evolutionary strategy is to have as many partners as possible
- males must compete with other males to present themselves as the most attractive mate to fertile female partners
What might males engage in according to intra-sexual selection
- mate guarding
- guard their female partner to prevent them mating with anyone else
- males are very fearful of having to raise another man’s child => cuckoldry
What is inter-sexual selection
- where members of one sex (usually females) choose from available prospects according to attractiveness
What does anisogamy suggest about inter-sexual selection
- women’s best evolutionary strategy is to be selective when choosing a partner
- females tend to seek male who displays characteristics of physical health, high status, and resources
- thus male is able to protect them and provide for their children
- although this ability may have equated to muscular strength in evolutionary past, in modern society it is more likely related to occupation, social class and wealth
What is the sexy sons hypothesis in evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
- females choosing certain traits in partners as these traits are ones they would like their sons to inherit
What are examples of positive evaluation points of evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- Clark and Hatfield (1989)
- Dunbar (2000)
- Singh (2002)
- Greiling (2000)
How is Clark and Hatfield (1989) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- conducted infamous study where male and female psychology students asked to approach fellow students of Florida State University (of opposite sex)
- asked one of three things; to go on a date, go back to their apartment, go to bed with them
- 50% of both men and women agreed to date
- 69% of men agreed to visit apartment and 75% agreed to go to bed
- 6% of women agreed to visit apartment and 0% agreed to go to bed
- supports evolutionary explanations as shows males ready to sleep with women whereas women more reserved
How is Dunbar (2000) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- found childless males tend to be shorter than males with children
- suggests females prefer to sexually select a tall mate
- could be a factor programmed in women’s genes
- females wish to reported and have tall, healthy children in future (survival of the fittest)
- therefore want a tall male to reproduce with, supporting sociobiological theory
How is Singh (2002) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- investigated whether males preferred women’s body size or waist to hip ratio
- found waist to hip ratio was most attractive feature
- ratio of 0:& which indicates small waist and wide hips
- visible indicator of female fertility
How is Greiling (2000) an example of a positive evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- gender biased saying short term mating leads to costs for women
- suggests short term mating can be beneficial to women
- gives them chance to leave poor quality relationship (mate switching) or as a way of producing more genetically diverse offspring
- therefore can be applicable to male and women
- however long term strategies might be seen as unfair for females as they are supposed to be choosy and sexually select only one mate whereas males can select many
What are examples of negative evaluation points of evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- deterministic
- socially sensitive
- variation
- problems
How is determinism an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- evolutionary approach is determinist
- suggests we have little free will in partner choice
- however everyday experiences tells us we do have some control over our partner preferences
How is social sensitivity an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- evolutionary approaches to mate preferences are socially sensitive
- promise traditional, sexist views regarding natural male and female behaviours which do not apply to modern society
- women are now more career orientated and independent and do not look for resourceful partners like before
- additionally availability of contraception means evolutionary pressures are less relevant
How is variation an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- evolutionary theory makes little attempt to explain other variations of relationships
- e.g. non-heterosexual relationships
- cultural variations in relationships existing across the world
- e.g. arranged marriages
How are problems an example of a negative evaluation point for the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
- evolutionary explanations can cause problems in relationships
- if males need to be big to acquire and protect females, this can cause males to abuse power in relationships and justify being possessive and aggressive towards females
- could lead to domestic violence whereby males feel justified in controlling women to protect them
Who has carried out research into sexual selection
- Buss (1989)
What did Buss (1989) do
- investigated what males and females looked for in long term partner
- 10k partners across 37 cultures
- rated 18 characteristics using 4 point scale, 0 = irrelevant and 3 = indispensable
What were the findings of Buss’ (1989) research
- females desired males with good financial prospects, resources and ambition
- males desired females who had reproductive value and were fertile, and all males universally wanted females who were youthful and younger than them
- both males and females wanted a partner who was intelligent and kind
What are examples of evaluation points for Buss’ (1989) study
- Buller (2005)
- sample
- Dunbar (1999)
How is Buller (2005) an example of an evaluation point for Buss’ (1989) study
- criticised Buss’ findings and evolutionary explanation of sexual selection
- questioned idea females universally prefer high status males with resources
- many studies have used female undergraduate students who had high educational status and high income, so maybe they are seeking high earning males who would be similar to them in educational background and income
- weak evidence females select males with resources and income to support them as many females have vast educational opportunities and good income to support themselves
How is sample an example of an evaluation point for Buss’ (1989) study
- conducted cross culturally across a range of cultures
- conclusive and consistent results
- seems universal
- can be generalised
- supports Buss and evolutionary explanations