Evolutionary explanation:

• STRENGTH:

  • support for the role of female choosiness in heterosexual partner preference
  • Clark and Hatfield 1989 send male and female psych students around a uni campus
  • They approached individuals and said: ' I have noticed your round campus. I find you very attractive. Would u want to spend tonight in bed together?
  • No females said yes however 75% of males said yes immediately
  • This supports the view that females are more choosy when it comes to choosing a sexual preference and males have a different strategy to ensure successive reproduction
• LIMITATION:

  • Argument from sexual selection that one strategy is adaptive for all males and another is adaptive for all females is too simplistic
  • Appears that strategies for mating tend to differ according to the length of the relationship
  • Sexual strategy theory Bass and Schmitt 2016 argue that male and female strategies for mating are very similar when they look for a long term relationship
  • For example they both look for someone loyal and nice
  • Shows a more complexed view of how evolutionary pressures influence partner preferences taking into account the context of reproductive behaviour
• STRENGTH:

  • Support for the predictions
  • Bass 1989 carried out a survey on 10,000 adults in 33 countries
  • The questions included a variety of attributes that the sexual selection theory was important in partner preference
  • Found females placed greater value on resource-related characteristic than males ie ambition
  • Males placed greater value of physically attractiveness and youth (a sign of good reproductive capacity) than females
  • findings reflect consistent sex differences in partner preference and supports the predictions of sexual selection theory