Evolved mating psychology focuses on the reasons why humans favor certain characteristics over others when choosing a mate and the possible mechanisms leading to these choices. Although researched by many disciplines ranging from genetics, biology, and sociology, this topic is dominated by evolutionary and social psychologists. As such, many of the theoretical groundings for their arguments are based in parental investment theory, sexual selection theory, and the social role theory of mate selection.
Even though its basis is in older theoretical models, evolved mating psychology was not a separate item of research until the 1980s, with the publications of Thiessen & Gregg’s “Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium”[1] and Buss’ “Human mate selection”[2]. Both studies were based in evolutionary psychology and introduced a list of traits deemed desirable in human mate choice and the genetic consequences of such behavior. Social psychologists responded with their own theories and the ensuing debate continues today.
Evolutionary Psychology Approach edit
Evolutionary psychology is a subset of natural and social sciences, such as biology and psychology, that emphasizes the importance of an evolutionary perspective to understanding the full range of human psychology [3]. As it pertains to human mate choice, an evolutionary psychology approach emphasizes the importance of Darwinian sexual selection, parental investment, and until recently, an evolutionary nativist perspective[4] [5][6] [7].
Sexual Selection edit
The theory of sexual selection, proposed by Charles Darwin in 1871, posits traits that provide an advantage in procuring mates will be influenced by sexual selection through mate choice or competition for mates. Mate choice, sometimes referred to as female choice, refers to the females preference in mate selection while competition for mates, also known as male-male competition, is the competition between males for female attention. Mate choice leads to the evolution of traits because of their preference for certain traits over others while traits allowing males to out compete others for mates is how male-male competition leads to evolved sexual traits.
Parental Investment edit
Proposed in 1972 by Robert Trivers, parental investment theory proposes differential parental investment in offspring as a driving factor in sexual selection[8]. Parents ensure the survival of their offspring through the investment of resources, whether they be food, protection, or metabolic input, in order to increase the likelihood of their genetic makeup surviving after parental breeding ceases. He posits the parent with the most investment in offspring rearing will have stronger selective preferences in mates due to the costs associated with choosing a bad mate. In mammal species, including humans, females invest the most effort and are therefore driving sexual selection. If a female chooses a male carelessly, she runs the risk of picking an insufficient mate and incurring a larger parental investment cost and the potential death of the child. For example, an indiscriminately chosen male mate might not be able to provide sufficient resources for the female and their offspring, the female will likely incur a large cost because she will have to provide for herself and her child. Therefore, the theory proposes females will exercise greater selective pressure in choosing mates with traits that will lessen the cost of child rearing.
Applications to Mating edit
The combination of these two theories with general theories of evolutionary psychology, like the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, allows evolutionary psychologists to understand how differential mate preferences arose. The traits now chosen by human males and females are the result of the female choice of male traits expressed through male-male competition within a Pleistocene environment [9] [10]. It is predicted human females will choose males who can provide resources that will help parental investment and increase the likelihood of offspring survival. Males will prefer traits associated with inferred reproductive value, the future reproduction of a female, and fertility, the probability of present reproduction. Physical appearances and behavior associated with youth are hypothesized to be indicators of female reproductive value and fertility [11]. They will also value less promiscuous females due to theories of parental certainty [12]. Parental certainty is the notion that there is no guarantee the offspring being raised by the male is his own, therefore males should prefer chaste females to increase the probability of genetic relatedness between the male and offspring.
This model was tested in 1989 by David Buss in which he gathered data from 37 cultures pertaining to the traits males and females preferred when deciding on mates[4]. If the evolutionary psychology approach was correct, the test should show male preference for traits associated with chastity, young age, and increased reproductive capacity defined by female physical appearance. Conversely, females should choose older males capable of providing adequate resources, defined as a male’s earning capacity. The study corroborated this hypothesis and its cross-cultural nature bolstered the support for an evolutionary origin of mate preference.
Social Psychology edit
Social psychology, as it pertains to evolved mating psychology, examines the roles of social structures as they relate to mating preference[13] [14]. These theorists place greater emphasis on the gender roles and stereotypes within society as the driver for differences in male and female mate preference. Proponents acknowledge the role biological traits resulting from evolutionary processes play in mate choice, however they maintain social structures are the primary force at work.
Social Structural Theory edit
Social structural theory examines established social structures and their contribution to the division of males and females in society[13] [15]. It suggests sex differences are the result of gender hierarchy and can be seen in the wage gap and occupational distribution of men and women. Central to this theory is the concept of gendered social roles, which are the result of values placed upon activities reliant on the contrasting biological strengths of men and women[13]. These social roles and their values directly influence behavior and finally mate choice.
Social Role Theory of Mate Selection edit
Building on social structural theory, social role theory attempts to explain why the values placed on gendered roles effect behavior[16]. The structures in place defining social roles act as a judge of which traits should be associated with these roles and are attractive[13]. An example of social role theory at work is the association of women in caregiving roles, based on the biological association of females caring for children. This association comes with traits women should express, like patience and a nurturing nature, which are then perpetuated by social structures as desirable traits to be acted upon.
Application to Mating Preference edit
According to this model, men and women will pick traits that balance out the traits assigned to them by their society’s gender roles, not because of the evolutionary history of those traits. Thus, a female in a society with homemaking as the role for women will seek a male breadwinner who can care for them and their children, perpetuating gender roles and gendered traits. If a society has a relatively equal division of labor and gender nonspecific roles, this theory proposes men and women will choose traits meant to fulfill gender divisions less often and focus on other traits.
Reexamination of Buss’ Study edit
To determine if this model can explain the traits Buss found in his 1989 study, Eagly and Wood reexamined the data with the inclusion of a gender equity category. Before this category was added, they corroborated the preference for younger, physically attractive females and older, resource stable males. The addition of the gender equity category tested whether gender disparities across the 37 cultures explained the patterning. Their results indicated the more equitable the genders were, the less likely males were to choose traits like good housekeeper as important and females were less likely to choose traits associated with level of resources males owned[13] [17].
Critiques edit
There are many critiques of evolutionary psychology by social psychologists but the most widely referenced include the ignoring of cultural influences on traits, the reliance upon informal explanations, problems discriminating adaptations from random changes, and difficulties creating an EEA [13] [17] [18]. Difficulties in creating an accurate EEA are central to many of the critiques since the foundation of evolutionary psychological arguments relies upon the evolution of traits in response to this environment. If we can’t portray the environment accurately, how can we understand how traits evolved they would ask. Informal explanations become a problem because of the inability to directly test the proposed hypothesis in an environment reflective of the EEA. Discerning traits resulting from adaptation rather than random changes is problematic because it is possible, these authors would argue, the trait in question was the result of a cultural adaptation or may have originally been selected for a different purpose than it is currently being selected for.
Evolutionary psychologists take issue with the mechanisms social psychological models propose, particularly the emphasis of social roles[19] [6]. They argue these social structures are an outcome of the evolutionary process, not the catalyst for selection of mate traits, and thus do not disprove sexual selection and parental investment as causes for trait preference. Also at issue is the lack of agency in discussions of social role assignment [20]. Evolutionary psychologists argue social psychological models based on the assignment of social and gender roles treats males and females as passive, unthinking organisms with no choice in following these roles. Instead they suggest humans have much more choice in the matter and are not blank slates on which social structures are forced upon them.
- ^ Thiessen, D.D; Gregg, B (1980). "Human Assortative Mating and Genetic Equilibrium". Ethology and Sociobiology. 4: 63-99.
- ^ Buss, D. M (1985). "Human Mate Selection". American Scientist. 73: 47-51.
- ^ Jeffares, B.; Sterelny, K. (2012). Margolis, E.; Samuels, R.; Stich, S.P (eds.). Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1-17.
- ^ a b Buss, D.M (1989). "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 12 (1): 1-49.
- ^ Buss, D. M.; Barnes, M. F. (1986). "Preferences in human mate selection". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50: 559-570.
- ^ a b Buss, D. M. (1995). "Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection". American Psychologist. 50: 1-30.
- ^ Schmitt, David P. (2005). "Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 28: 247-311.
- ^ Trivers, R. (1972). Campbell, B. (ed.). Parental investment and sexual selection. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. p. 1871-1971.
- ^ Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J.; Barkow, J. H. (1992). Barkow, J. H.; Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (eds.). Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual integration. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3-15.
- ^ Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (1990). "The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments". Ethology and Sociobiology. 11: 375-424.
- ^ Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Borgerhoff Mulder, M (1988). Betzig, L. L.; Borgerhoff Mulder, M.; Turke, P. W. (eds.). Kipsigis bridewealth payments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 65-82.
- ^ a b c d e f Eagly, Alice H.; Wood, Wendy (1999). "The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles". American Psychologist. 54 (6): 408-423.
- ^ Eagly, A. H.; Wood, W.; Diekman, A. B. (2000). Eckes, T.; Trautner, H. (eds.). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. p. 123-174.
- ^ Wood, W.; Eagly, A. H. (2002). "A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences". Psychological Bulletin. 128 (5): 699-727.
- ^ Eagly, A. H.; Wood, W.; Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2004). Eagly, A. H; Beall, A.; Sternberg, R. J. (eds.). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: implications for the partner preferences of women and men (2 ed.). New York: Guilford. p. 269-295.
- ^ a b Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C.; Eagly, A. H. (2002). "Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: the effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 26: 322-328.
- ^ Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- ^ Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J.; Barkow, J. H. (1992). Barkow, J. H.; Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (eds.). Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual integration. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3-15.
- ^ Buss, D. M. (1996). Higgins, E. T.; Kruglanski, A. W. (eds.). The evolutionary psychology of human social strategies. New York: Guilford Press. p. 3-38.