Clark and Hatfield 1989
Cards (8)
- aimto investigate an evolutionary explanation of parental investment.
- sample48 females and 48 males as well as a team of 9 confederates, 5 women and 4 men who ranged from mildly attractive to moderately attractive.
- procedurethe confederates approached the people whom they found attractive and asked them if they would like to go on a date, to their apartment or bed. after they were asked to rate the attractivness of the naive prtcpnts. the questions were only asked on the weekdays and not between classes or during rainy weather. all prtcpnts were debriefed afterwards.
- results-when females asked males, 50% of prtcpnts aggreed to go on a date and 75% agrredd to go to bed.-when males asked females, 56% agreed to go on a date whilst 0% agrred to go to bed.-the level of attractiveness of the confederate had no significant effect on the response recieved.-later replication of the study in 1982 yielded the same results.
- conclusion-supports the parental investment theory as it shows how females are less willing to engage in casual sexual activity.
- link to bio SAQ-evolutionary psychologists would suggest that due to natural selection, men and women differ in their approach to sexual behaviour.-proves women are more selective in choosing a partner whilst men are interested in spreading their DNA, therefore more open to mating.
- evaluation: strengths-1982 and 2015 study replications found the same results, making it more reliable, has temporal validity.-high ecological validity as it was a field experiment.
- evaluation: weaknesses-parental investment theory is only one possible explanation; it could be the influence of social norms as this was done in florida. its possible for a society with different social norms to yield different results. women could have rejected the offer due to concerns for safety compared to men that are confident to go up against a woman.-ethical consideration : deception used however were debriefed after.