Evaluation

• Strength: support for the relationship with intra-sexual selection

  Buss surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries asking about partner preference. He found that females valued resource-related characteristics more than males (e.g. good financial prospects). Males valued reproductive capacity (e.g. good looks and youth). This supports sex differences due to anisogamy and partner preferences derived from natural selection theory
• Limitation: ignores social and cultural influences

  Partner preferences have impacted over time by changing social norms and cultural practices. These have occurred too rapidly to be explained in evolutionary terms. Chang et al. report than some preferences have changed and others have remained the same over 25 years in China. This suggests that both evolutionary and cultural influences must be taken into account when explaining human reproductive behaviour
• Strength: support from waist-hip ratio research

  Singh measured waist-hip ratio preferences of males for females. Findings were that any hip and waist size can be attractive as long as the ratio of one to another is 0.7 (thought to signify that the female is fertile but not currently pregnant). This shows that evolutionary factors are reflected in patterns of human reproductive behaviour through partner preferences
• Strength: support from lonely heart research

  Waynforth and Dunbar studied lonely hearts advertisements in American newspapers to see how men and women describe the qualities they desired in and offered to a potential partner. They found women tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth and sought resources. Men offered resources and sought youth and physical attractiveness. These findings support the evolutionary suggestions that women will seek resources whilst men are more focused on signs of reproductive fitness