SST & human mate choice Flashcards
Sexual strategies theory
Human sexual selection
Buss & Schmitt, 1993
successful replication, cross-culturally
Human mate choices & mating strategies
- Short-term strategy
- multiple mates
- limited mutual obligation
- limited duration
- Long-term strategy
- exclusive sexual access to 1 individual
- extensive mutual obligation
- long duration - through child-rearing
Links to parental investment theory!
- investment in offspring is valuable
- protected by females (greater investment)
- competed for by males (lesser investment)
Principles of SST
Different reproductive constraints
- ♀ investment
- ♂ access
→ Different adaptive problems
- ♀ mate choice, minimise cost
- ♂ long/short term strategy
→→ Different psychological mechanisms
- find different things attractive
Male short term sexual strategies
- identify fertility & sexual maturity
- minimise investment
- maximise no. of partners
Benefits
- direct increase in reproductive fitness
Costs
- conflict w/ others
- damage LT strategies
- costly in terms of energy, resources, time
How have men evolved to maximise their number of ST partners?
Buss & Schmitt 1993
Men evolved a desire for sexual access to many women
Predict
- Lower standards for ST mates in men compared to women
- ♀ & ♂ rate desirability of qualities in ST sex partner
- -3 extremely undesirable –> +3 extremely desirable
- Men have far fewer desirable & undesirable qualities - much lower standards for ST mates
- Minimise delay between meeting and intercourse
- Clark & Hatfield, 1989
- % agreement
- go out for coffee ♀ 50%, ♂ 50%
- go to apartment ♀ 5%, ♂ 70%
- go to bed ♀ 0%, ♂ 75%
- men more willing to sleep with someone they just met, women more likely to sleep with them after knowing them some time
- Avoid ST mate requiring commitment
- ‘wants a commitment’ undesirable for ST, desirable for LT
- signs of promiscuity valued in ST mates - shows sexual availability
Female and male standards for ST mates
Desirable qualities
- men rate qualities less desirable in 67% of cases compared to women
- Never rate qualities as more desirable than women
Undesirable qualities
- rated as less consequential than by women by 30% of men
- rated as more consequential than by women by 10% of men
Women’s ST sexual strategies
benefits and costs
Benefits
- indirect benefits - good genes
Costs
- loss of direct benefits of commitment (security, parenting assisstance…)
- damaging to LT strategies
How do women go about ST strategies?
Buss & Schmitt, 1993
Predict
- women more selective than men about ST strategies
- men have lower standards, women still have quite high standards
- less women than men will use ST strategies
- less women than men seek ST strategies, roughly the same for LT
Sociosexual orientation
Individual differences in approaching sexual relationships w/ & w/o commitment
Restricted sociosexual orientation - consistent with LT strategy
Unrestricted sociosexulal orientation - consistent with ST strategy
Measured with Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) - Penke & Asendorpf, 2008
- behaviour (how often do you….?)
- attitudes (how do you feel about…?)
- desires (how often do you think about…?)
Sex differences in SOI
Penke & Asendorpf, 2008
Little difference for behaviour, women score higher (more LT) on attitude and desire
Female ST strategies evidence
Comparative physiology
Chimps - large testes comp. to body size. Competition bc polygamy
Gorillas - smaller testes. Strength = access to females. Don’t waste energy.
Humans - between the two. Suggests ST strategy use by males in the past
Female ST strategies evidence
Pornography
Pound, 2002
- 9% of pornographic video scenes show multiple males 1 female
- 5% show multiple females 1 male
Men aroused by this bc shows female promiscuity - ST strategies
Female ST strategies evidence
Male phallic physiology
Gollup et al., 2003
Measured displacement of artificial semen from artificial vagina w/ various shapeds of artificial penis
Human shape displaces 75-100% –> suggests shape evolved to remove semen of other males - females using ST strategies
Female ST strategies
Extra-pair paternity
Do women seek out mates while partnered for indirect benefits of genetics?
Scelza, 2011
- Himba people (tribal community); natural fertility population
- ‘omoka’ children (extra-pair paternity) more common in arranged marriages (23.2%) than love matches (0)
Cultural influence on LT mate preferences
Buss (1989)
International Mate Selection Project
37 cultures, 6 continents, 10,000+ P’s
Diverse countries! Polygany and monogamy, cohabitation w/o marriage common and uncommon, races and religions, rich and poor…
Survey
- ♀ & ♂ rate traits 0-3 on importance
- Desirable for all - willing to commit, good parenting, good genes (cultural consistencies)
- Women desire men willing and able to invest - cues to resource acquisition (Buss, 2006)
- Men desire women with high reproductive value
Female LT strategies
- good financial prospets (Buss, 2006)
- high social status education
- industriousness
- older
- all signal ability to acquire resources!
Benefits
- direct benefit - resources
Costs
- loss of indirect benefits - good genes
LT strategies & age
Men universally prefer younger partners, women universally prefer older partners
Ideal LT male partner
Universal preferences:
- emotionally stable
- committed
- well educated
- sociable
- good financial prospects
- slightly older
- all show willingness and ability to invest
All men haven’t acquired these traits bc women seek highest available value, not an absolute value –> no consistent selection pressure
Success of other traits associated with ST strategies?
Non-universal preferences:
- pleasant disposition
- good health
- desire for family life
- ambition
Men’s LT strategies
Benefits
- attract higher quality mate via resources
- women might require it
- increased paternal certainty
- increased survival chance for children w/ 2 parents
Costs
- possible loss of direct fitness through ST strategies
Male LT mate preferences
Fertility in mate = greater reproductive success
Reproductive value: no. of children likely to have in the future
Evolved preferences reflect qualities correlated with reproductive value & fertility
Male LT preferences
Cues to reproductive value in women
Fertility & age
- women most fertile in 20s
- Buss 1990 - men prefer younger wives in all cultures
- Kenricke et al., 1996 - teenage boys prefer older women
- OKCupid youngest alllowable match younger for men than women, men tend to message women younger than they are
Male LT preferences
Physical attractiveness
Men see physical attractiveness as more important in LT mates than women across cultures
Cue to reproductive value (health & age)
Men with attraction to these cues had more offspring - selective advantage if preference shows heritability
Male LT strategies
Provision of resources
McNulty & Neff, 2008
- Man more attractive = provide less, less satisfactory marriage
- Woman more attractive = provide more resources & support, no effect on marriage satisfaction
Ideal LT female partner
Universal preferences
- committed
- educated
- sociable
- good looks
- younger
- = commitment and reproductive value
Non-universal preferences
- pleasant disposition
- good health
- desire for family life
- dependable
Sociosexuality effect on courtship
Penke & Asendorpf (2008)
- Discriminant validity (they’re related!) shown for
- sex differences
- prediction of observed flirting behaviour
- self-reported no. of sexual partners
- change in romantic relationship status over following year
Strategies of mate guarding
Buss (2006)
- Jealousy evolved to defend against infidelity and mate poaching
- Men - improve paternal certainty by reducing chance of infidelity
- Women - ensure partner stays, provides resources, time, commitments to her and not rival female and her children
Buss et al. (1999)
- men more attuned to & upset by signals of sexual infidelity
- women more attuned to & upset by signals of emotional infidelity
- seen cross culturally
- Korea & Japan (Buss et al., 1999)
- China (Geary et al., 1995)
- Sweden (Wiederman & Kendall, 1999)
