Evo explanations of Partner preferences
A01
- Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics over successive generations
- There is an evolutionary explanation of partner preference.
- Anisogamy refers to differences between male and female sex cells
Intersexual selection:
- refers to the preferences of one sex for certain traits in the opposite sex.
- preferred strategy that females use to select males
- Quality over quantity
- This preference determines what features are passed on to offspring
- For example choosing a tall male means your children could also be tall
Intra sexual selection:
- mate competition within the same sex for access to partners
- Males compete with each other for a female, which ever male wins can pass on
their genes
- leads to sexual dimorphism: differences in appearance between males and
females
- can lead to behavioral consequences - characteristics that are passed on are
those that allow a male to outcompete his rivals
A03
S - RS for inter sexual selection
P - One strength of the evolutionary explanation of partner preferences is that there is
clear research support for inter-sexual selection.
E - Clark and Hatfeild sent uni students across campus and approached other
students asking if they would go to bed with them tonight? Not a single female accepted
the request - 75% of males did immediately.
E - females are more selective or choosier in their mating preferences than males, -
supports the theory of intersexual selection.
From an evolutionary perspective, females invest more biologically in offspring (e.g.,
pregnancy and child-rearing), and so they benefit more from selecting a high-quality
partner who can provide genetic fitness and resources.
- In contrast, males, who produce many sperm and have lower min biological
investment, tend to adopt a quantity-over-quality strategy, increasing their
reproductive success by mating with multiple partners.
L - while the study provides valuable support for intersexual selection, the limited and
sample reduces the external validity of the findings and the extent to which they can
be applied to the wider population.
,S – RS for intra sexual selection
P - there is clear research support for intra- sexual selections
E - David Buss conducted a cross cultural study on 10,000 adults from 33 countries -
found women universally preferred mates with financial prospects, while men preferred
young, physically attractive women—traits associated with fertility and reproductive
value.
E - this research provides support for intra sexual selection as the universal pattern
suggest that mate preferences are not due to cultural factors but instead reflect
adaptive characteristics that enhance reproductive success
L - Buss’s research increases external validity for the sexual selection theory
demonstrating cross cultural consistency suggesting the explanation has strong
generalisability.
C - it can be argued social and cultural influences like changes in gender roles and
female empowerment may mean such explanations can be considered as reductionist
by ignoring the role of socialisation
L – Overemphasis on the role of anisogamy
P - overemphasis of the role of anisogamy in explaining partner preferences.
E - Bernstein proposed that gender diff in mate preference patterns might stem from
cultural traditions rather than being the result of evolved characteristics.
An analysis of 37 cultures (Kasser and Sharma) showed that women valued potential
mates' access to resources more in cultures where women's status and educational
opportunities were limited.
E - partner preferences may be subjective and influenced by culture, access to
opportunities, and an individual’s social and economic background, rather than
purely evolved biological drives.
Also, the study analysed data from 37 different cultures increases the cross-cultural
validity of the findings and highlights the importance of env and cultural variation in
shaping mating preferences.
- it challenges the assumption that all human mate choices are rooted solely in
evolutionary mechanisms and instead suggests that partner pref patterns are
more complex and may be influenced by societal context.
L - evolutionary explanations can be considered as reductionist, as they do not fully
consider social or cultural influences.
, - So further research must be conducted to better understand how evolutionary
and cultural factors interact determining mate preferences
A01
- Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics over successive generations
- There is an evolutionary explanation of partner preference.
- Anisogamy refers to differences between male and female sex cells
Intersexual selection:
- refers to the preferences of one sex for certain traits in the opposite sex.
- preferred strategy that females use to select males
- Quality over quantity
- This preference determines what features are passed on to offspring
- For example choosing a tall male means your children could also be tall
Intra sexual selection:
- mate competition within the same sex for access to partners
- Males compete with each other for a female, which ever male wins can pass on
their genes
- leads to sexual dimorphism: differences in appearance between males and
females
- can lead to behavioral consequences - characteristics that are passed on are
those that allow a male to outcompete his rivals
A03
S - RS for inter sexual selection
P - One strength of the evolutionary explanation of partner preferences is that there is
clear research support for inter-sexual selection.
E - Clark and Hatfeild sent uni students across campus and approached other
students asking if they would go to bed with them tonight? Not a single female accepted
the request - 75% of males did immediately.
E - females are more selective or choosier in their mating preferences than males, -
supports the theory of intersexual selection.
From an evolutionary perspective, females invest more biologically in offspring (e.g.,
pregnancy and child-rearing), and so they benefit more from selecting a high-quality
partner who can provide genetic fitness and resources.
- In contrast, males, who produce many sperm and have lower min biological
investment, tend to adopt a quantity-over-quality strategy, increasing their
reproductive success by mating with multiple partners.
L - while the study provides valuable support for intersexual selection, the limited and
sample reduces the external validity of the findings and the extent to which they can
be applied to the wider population.
,S – RS for intra sexual selection
P - there is clear research support for intra- sexual selections
E - David Buss conducted a cross cultural study on 10,000 adults from 33 countries -
found women universally preferred mates with financial prospects, while men preferred
young, physically attractive women—traits associated with fertility and reproductive
value.
E - this research provides support for intra sexual selection as the universal pattern
suggest that mate preferences are not due to cultural factors but instead reflect
adaptive characteristics that enhance reproductive success
L - Buss’s research increases external validity for the sexual selection theory
demonstrating cross cultural consistency suggesting the explanation has strong
generalisability.
C - it can be argued social and cultural influences like changes in gender roles and
female empowerment may mean such explanations can be considered as reductionist
by ignoring the role of socialisation
L – Overemphasis on the role of anisogamy
P - overemphasis of the role of anisogamy in explaining partner preferences.
E - Bernstein proposed that gender diff in mate preference patterns might stem from
cultural traditions rather than being the result of evolved characteristics.
An analysis of 37 cultures (Kasser and Sharma) showed that women valued potential
mates' access to resources more in cultures where women's status and educational
opportunities were limited.
E - partner preferences may be subjective and influenced by culture, access to
opportunities, and an individual’s social and economic background, rather than
purely evolved biological drives.
Also, the study analysed data from 37 different cultures increases the cross-cultural
validity of the findings and highlights the importance of env and cultural variation in
shaping mating preferences.
- it challenges the assumption that all human mate choices are rooted solely in
evolutionary mechanisms and instead suggests that partner pref patterns are
more complex and may be influenced by societal context.
L - evolutionary explanations can be considered as reductionist, as they do not fully
consider social or cultural influences.
, - So further research must be conducted to better understand how evolutionary
and cultural factors interact determining mate preferences
