One sex (F) chooses from available mates (M’s) according to Evolutionary One sex (M’s) co
attractiveness (genes that grant attractive qualities). M’s & F’s look for explanations for partner reproductive suc
different characteristics in a mate so behave differently to attract them preferences (PP); sex (F) leads to M
Sexual selection (SS)
Men prioritise physical appearance and have The accentuatio
evolved to be responsive to young and 1) Inter sexual characte
attractive females (implies her reproductive sexual during puberty)
value so that the M can pass on his genes) selection 2) Intra enable reprodu
sexual e.g. sexual dimo
Women prioritise socioeconomic status & have evolved to be selection are 15% larger i
responsive to resourceful males (implies he can invest in child
by keeping them alive so that the F can pass on her genes)
Aggression is an instinctive evolved behaviour
F strategy- Quality>quantity. M strategy- Competing for the chance competition for the mate to be fought off (oth
to mate w/ fertile female shows that they’re worthy of mating with F’s fidelity, risks the M’s genes not being passe
Social desirability- F’s may be less likely to report finding physical att
E High population validity- Buss’ analysed 10k
attractive- decreases val since it’s not a good reflection of preferen
v questionnaires where factors (e.g. age, IQ) Oversimplistic as it takes the determinism side- SS claims human rep
a were rated for importance in a partner, P’s behaviour is driven by evolution (genes) so we have no control but t
l were from 37 cultures in 33 countries (big contraception also gender differences stemming from traditions e.g.
u cross cultural sample), M value physical economic power so seek out security from M’s, implies there are cul
a attractiveness & F’s value high status (good - decreases validity since many disagree with this one sided view- th
t job)- increases generalisability of the claim Oversimplistic as it is focusses on hetero, sexual relationships- Does
i about innate sexual selection since people maydistance (e.g. over the internet), same sex, or those choosing not to
o function in the same way- therefore… assumes all romance is motivated by a desire to reproduce- decrea
n evolution (SS) is an effective explanation of PP isability since other people might not function in the same way- th
,Parents ability to invest in an offspring, increasing its chances of survival F’s high parental investment- High paren
& a max of 12 (9m) pregnancies. Need t
that their mate can provide & protect, e
Evolutionary
Human reproductive behaviour- offspring to survive so that genes are pa
explanations for partner
Any behaviours which relate to
preferences; Sex Sexual selection- Attributes that incre
opportunities to reproduce thus
differences (SD) in reproductive success are passed on to
increase the survival of our genes.
parental investment (PI) next generation and may become exagg
over succeeding generations of offsp
M’s low PI- Low paternity confidence (is it
mine?) and a vast no. of offspring potential. Consistent w/ anisogamy- Differences in M & F sex cells. F’s must use
Don’t need to invest in 1 kid, promiscuity since they invest in production of an egg (born w/ 300), men have ma
enables more of genes to be passed on (40-600 million per ejaculation) so can be less choosy, leads to sexual
Supported by research- Clark & Hatfield Low population validity- Sample consists of uni students on 1 uni ca
(1989) got attractive confederates to unrepresentative and unique e.g. age & environment could lead to
E approach the opposite sex and ask 1 of casual sex, so it generates little data to base conclusions on- decrea
v 3 Q’s: I’ve noticed you around and I find generalisability since other people might not function in the same w
a you v attractive, would you…tonight? Oversimplistic as it takes the determinism side- SS claims human repr
l A)go out with me, B)come over to my behaviour is driven by evolution (genes) so we have no control but th
u apartment, C)go to bed with me, they contraception also gender differences stemming from traditions e.g.
a found that out of the 96 students asked economic power so seek out security from M’s, implies there are cult
t 0% F & 75% M positive response to C- decreases validity since many disagree with this one sided view- ther
i increases val of claim about SD in PI Oversimplistic as it is focusses on hetero, sexual relationships- Doesn
o since F’s are evolved to be choosier due distance (e.g. over the internet), same sex, or those choosing not to
n to high PI- therefore… evolution (PI) is assumes all romance is motivated by a desire to reproduce- decrease
an effective explanation of PP generalisability since other people might not function in the same w
attractiveness (genes that grant attractive qualities). M’s & F’s look for explanations for partner reproductive suc
different characteristics in a mate so behave differently to attract them preferences (PP); sex (F) leads to M
Sexual selection (SS)
Men prioritise physical appearance and have The accentuatio
evolved to be responsive to young and 1) Inter sexual characte
attractive females (implies her reproductive sexual during puberty)
value so that the M can pass on his genes) selection 2) Intra enable reprodu
sexual e.g. sexual dimo
Women prioritise socioeconomic status & have evolved to be selection are 15% larger i
responsive to resourceful males (implies he can invest in child
by keeping them alive so that the F can pass on her genes)
Aggression is an instinctive evolved behaviour
F strategy- Quality>quantity. M strategy- Competing for the chance competition for the mate to be fought off (oth
to mate w/ fertile female shows that they’re worthy of mating with F’s fidelity, risks the M’s genes not being passe
Social desirability- F’s may be less likely to report finding physical att
E High population validity- Buss’ analysed 10k
attractive- decreases val since it’s not a good reflection of preferen
v questionnaires where factors (e.g. age, IQ) Oversimplistic as it takes the determinism side- SS claims human rep
a were rated for importance in a partner, P’s behaviour is driven by evolution (genes) so we have no control but t
l were from 37 cultures in 33 countries (big contraception also gender differences stemming from traditions e.g.
u cross cultural sample), M value physical economic power so seek out security from M’s, implies there are cul
a attractiveness & F’s value high status (good - decreases validity since many disagree with this one sided view- th
t job)- increases generalisability of the claim Oversimplistic as it is focusses on hetero, sexual relationships- Does
i about innate sexual selection since people maydistance (e.g. over the internet), same sex, or those choosing not to
o function in the same way- therefore… assumes all romance is motivated by a desire to reproduce- decrea
n evolution (SS) is an effective explanation of PP isability since other people might not function in the same way- th
,Parents ability to invest in an offspring, increasing its chances of survival F’s high parental investment- High paren
& a max of 12 (9m) pregnancies. Need t
that their mate can provide & protect, e
Evolutionary
Human reproductive behaviour- offspring to survive so that genes are pa
explanations for partner
Any behaviours which relate to
preferences; Sex Sexual selection- Attributes that incre
opportunities to reproduce thus
differences (SD) in reproductive success are passed on to
increase the survival of our genes.
parental investment (PI) next generation and may become exagg
over succeeding generations of offsp
M’s low PI- Low paternity confidence (is it
mine?) and a vast no. of offspring potential. Consistent w/ anisogamy- Differences in M & F sex cells. F’s must use
Don’t need to invest in 1 kid, promiscuity since they invest in production of an egg (born w/ 300), men have ma
enables more of genes to be passed on (40-600 million per ejaculation) so can be less choosy, leads to sexual
Supported by research- Clark & Hatfield Low population validity- Sample consists of uni students on 1 uni ca
(1989) got attractive confederates to unrepresentative and unique e.g. age & environment could lead to
E approach the opposite sex and ask 1 of casual sex, so it generates little data to base conclusions on- decrea
v 3 Q’s: I’ve noticed you around and I find generalisability since other people might not function in the same w
a you v attractive, would you…tonight? Oversimplistic as it takes the determinism side- SS claims human repr
l A)go out with me, B)come over to my behaviour is driven by evolution (genes) so we have no control but th
u apartment, C)go to bed with me, they contraception also gender differences stemming from traditions e.g.
a found that out of the 96 students asked economic power so seek out security from M’s, implies there are cult
t 0% F & 75% M positive response to C- decreases validity since many disagree with this one sided view- ther
i increases val of claim about SD in PI Oversimplistic as it is focusses on hetero, sexual relationships- Doesn
o since F’s are evolved to be choosier due distance (e.g. over the internet), same sex, or those choosing not to
n to high PI- therefore… evolution (PI) is assumes all romance is motivated by a desire to reproduce- decrease
an effective explanation of PP generalisability since other people might not function in the same w
