A03 Sexual Selection And Human Reproductive Behaviour

• rt for preferences related to anisogamy

  Buss conducted a survey over 10,000 adults in 33 countries. Asked questions relating to age and variety of atributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference. Found females placed greater value on resource-related factors while males valued reproductive capactity and preference for younger females. This reflects sex differences in mating strategies due to anisogamy.
• Cultural findings of Buss' study (Research support for preferences related to anisogamy)

  Supports predictions about partner preference derived from sexual selection theory. Findings applied to vast cultures, reflecting fundamental human preferences which are not primarily dependent upon cultural influences.
• Research suport for inter-sexual selection

  Clark and Hatfield showed female choosiness is the reality of heterosexual relationships. Male and female psychology students were sent out accross a university campus and approached other students asking 'I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to be with me tonight?'.
• Clark and Hatfield findings (Research suport for inter-sexual selection)


  Not a single female agreed but 75% of males did. This supports the evolutionary theory as it suggests females are 'choosier' than males when it comes to selecting sexual partners and males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success.
• Ignores social and cultural influences


  Partner preference over the past century is influenced by rapidly changing social norms of sexual behaviour. These develop much faster than evolutionary timescales and instead have come about due to cultural factors like availability and contraception.
• Changes in gender and cultural roles (Ignores social and cultural influences)


  Women's greater role in the workplace means they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them. Bereczkei argues this social change has cons for women's male preference which may be no longer resource-orientated. Chang et al compared partner preference over 25 years and found some changes but others stayed the same.
• Male preferences (Ignores social and cultural influences)

  Male preferences are the outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. Any theory that fails to account for both is a limited explanation.
• Support from waist-hip ratio research

  Evolutionary theory makes several predictions about partner preference that can be tested empirically. One is that all males will show greater preference for a female body shape that signals fertility.
• Devendra Singh study (Support from waist-hip ratio research)


  Studies this in terms of wasit-hip ratio. What matters is the ratio of wasit to hip sizes up to a point, males generally find any hip and wasit sizes as attractive as long as the ratio to the other is about 0.7. A combination if wuder hips and narrower waists is attractive as it is an 'hones' signal that the woman is fertile but not pregnant.
• Support from lonely hearts research

  Waynforth and Dunbar studied lonely hearts advertisements in American newspapers. These historically were opportunities for men (usually) and women to describe the qualities they desired in a potential partner, whilst cataloging what they had to offer.
• Findings of lonely heart research (Support from lonely hearts research)

  Women more than men tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth. Men on the other hand, offered resources more than women did and sought relative youth and physical attractiveness