Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

• The Nature of Sexual Selection:

  Darwin developed the theory of sexual selection; explaining the evolution of characteristics that provide a reproductive advantage as a opposed to a survival advantage. In sexual selection, an individual's survival isn't at risk, it is their ability to leave more descendants.
• Intrasexual Selection:

  Individuals of one sex (usually males) must outcompete other members to gain Access to members of the other sex. Successful mates are then able to pass on their genes. Meaning whichever characteristic leads to success in the same sex contests (e.g. greater size, cunning, etc) becomes more widespread in the gene pool by virtue of its reproductive advantage to the winner.
• Intersexual Selection:

  Members of one sex Evolve preferences for desirable qualities in potential mates. Members who possess these characteristics (e.g. attractiveness, status, resources) will then gain a mating advantage. The preference of one sex then determines the areas in which the other sex must compete.
• Sexual Selection and Long-term Mate Preferences:

  These mechanisms have developed because random mating is seen as stupid mating- it is then an advantage to be choosy, as the genetic quality of the mate will determine half the genetic quality of the offspring. By joining force with a high quality mate, offspring are higher in quality and an individual's genes are more likely to be passed on.
• Key Study: Buss


  Procedure- study involved 10,000 people from 37 different cultures. Participants are asked to rate 18 characteristics (such as physical attractiveness, good financial prospects) on how important they are in choosing a mate. A four-point scale was used; ranging from 3 as indispensable and 0 as irrelevant.
• Key Study: Buss


  Findings- RESOURCES: women more than men desired mates who had 'good financial prospects' translating into a man with resources, or qualities like ambition. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS: men placed more importance as it provides cues to a women's health and thus her fertility and reproductive value. YOUTH: men universally wanted younger mates to them, an indication they value increased fertility. OTHER: both sexes wanted intelligent mates (linked to parenting skills) and kind mates (linked to interest in long-term relationships).
• Long-term Mate Preferences:

  Buss: for females, this means being attracted to males to are able to invest resources in her and her children, are able to physically protect her and her children, show promise as a good parent are then sufficiently compatible to ensure minimal costs to her and her children. However, males don't give their resources indiscriminately- they are more likely to be attracted to females displaying signs of fertility as an indication of their reproductive value.
• AO3: Importance of Cultural Tradition

  Bernstein: gender differences might due to cultural traditions rather than evolved characteristics. E.g. women being denied economic power in some cultures, it may account for them relying on the security and economic resources provided by men. An analysis of 37 cultures by Kasser and Sharma found that in cultures where women's status and educational opportunities were limited, they valued males access to resources more greatly. Meaning social and economic factors are important in establishing mate preferences. IDA- Evolutionary Reductionism
• AO3: Female Preferences for High-Status Men

  Buller: claims evolutionary psychologists are mistaken in their claims of universal female preference for high status males. Arguing the majority of studies have been carried out on female undergraduate students, who expect to achieve high educational status, so have high expectations of their income. Their preference could then be explained through a preference for males with similar interests, education and prospects to them. Meaning the universal claim is weak and inconsistent. IDA- Individual Differences, Nomothetic Limitation
• AO3: Mate Choices in Real Life

  Buss' survey of mate choices lacks validity- though it does give an indication of expressed preferences, it doesn't reveal what happens in real life. However, there are real-life studies which support the mate-choice hypothesis; e.g. Buss did a study of actual marriages in 29 cultures and it confirmed that men do choose younger women. Additionally, critics argue that Buss' study is a more valid measurement of partner preferences than actual marriage statistics, particularly when arranged marriages are a norm.
• AO3: Mate Choices and the Menstrual Cycle

  Penton-Voak et al suggests female mate choices vary across the menstrual cycle; women chose a more feminised face as 'most attractive' for a long-term relationship. However, during high contraception risk they chose a more masculinised face. Meaning at low risk they choose a feminised appearance suggesting kindness and cooperation in parental care, but at high risk choose males with higher levels of testosterone, supresses the immune system; valuable trait to pass on. IDA- Beta Bias; females only consider evolutionary advantage when fertile.
• AO3: Key Study Criticisms

  Lacks Temporal Validity- doesn't reflect relationships in today's society, like in homosexual relationships where partner choice isn't due to reproductive success, so doesn't have an evolutionary advantage. Due to being evolutionary reductionist, it fails to consider individual differences in partner choice, using other factors like cognitions.
• AO3: Alpha Bias

  Evolutionary explanations of mate preferences emphasise the differences of male and female preferences, and this exaggeration of differences is alpha bias. The differences may be overstated- as it is plausible to argue that males and females actually look for similar characteristics, such as loyalty and kindness, such characteristics are ignored as such research tends to look for clear differences.