Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
factors in mate selection
factors in mate selection
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: factors in mate selection
The Evolution of Human Mating
It may seem obvious to some why people mate, however there are many facets to human mating. Psychology has shown that reasons for mating have gone beyond the scope of love and physical attractiveness. People may search for mates who resemble archetypical images of the opposite-sex parent, mates with characteristics that are either complementary or similar to one's own qualities, or mates with whom to make an exchange of valuable resources (Buss 238). Although these theories play a key role in understanding patterns in human mating preferences, evolutionary psychology and sexual selection theory provide more concrete frameworks for explaining human mating.
Evolutionary framework for human mating is based on three elements. First, strategies for mating developed to solve specific problems in human evolutionary history. Second, people behave differently depending on the type of mating involved. There are two types of mating, short term and long term mating. Short term mating is defined as casual sex (i.e. one-night stands and brief affairs). Long term mating is seen as a committed relationship (i.e. dating, going steady, and marriage). Third, males and females developed different strategies due to the difference in problems they have had over the course of human evolution (Buss 241). This paper will examine those strategies specific to males.
Men have developed different mating strategies to solve problems in both long term and short term mating. In pursuing a short-term sexual strategy men face four man problems: partner number (variety), identifying women who are sexually accessible, identifying women who are fertile, and avoiding commitment and investment. Men evolved over evol...
... middle of paper ...
...ionary history, both men and women have evolved mechanisms that have functioned to solve adaptive problems that they encounter in pursuing successful long-term and short-term mating. These mechanisms along with behavior constitute the evolved sexual strategies of men and women. "Strategies are defined as evolved solutions to adaptive problems, with no consciousness or awareness on the part of the strategist implied (Buss, Schmitt 206)."
Bibliography:
Bibliography
Buss, David M. The Strategies of Human Mating. Psychological Review. pp. 238-249
(1994).
Buss, David M. and Schmitt, David P. Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary
Perspective on Human Mating. Psychological Review. Vol 100(2): 204-203.
(1993).
Ellis, Lee. Social stratification and socioeconomic inequality. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers. Vol 1: 111-137. (1993)
Ellis, Kate. “Fatal Attraction, Or The Post-Modern Prometheus.” Journal of Sex Research 27.1 (1990): 111-22. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Feb. 2014. .
Reproduction in Homo sapiens, as in all animals, is a primary driving force and has been elaborated upon since the beginnings of society. Humans must take part in sexual reproduction to produce offspring, thus initiation behaviors can be studied. Commonly, the male makes advances and the female is the selector, or chooses the mate. For humans, this holds true and behavior is modified to maximize competitive receptability. This phenomenon carries across all cultural boundaries and is deeply rooted in the overall behavior patterns in the people of the culture. People try to refine their natural appearance to maximize mating opportunity. The males attempt to enhance features for success in initiation and females compete for receptability completeness.
In the article the researchers were trying to challenge the sexual strategies theory. It seems as though sexual strategies theory is different genders having different preferences when choosing a mate, in the case of long and short term relationships. The hypothesis at first was that both boys and girls felt that attractiveness was important. Girls would be more inclined to date someone because of social status and that boys would be the complete opposite. They also expected that social status would only become important when the person is attractive and social status would be important no matter if the person is attractive on no for girls. The last thing that was tested was according to Ha (2009) “the potential moderator effects of self-perceived mate value on adolescents desire to date with an attractive person.” Also according to Ha (2009) “They hypothesized that boys and girls preference for attractiveness and high social status would be independent of their own perceived mate value.” The information used to come to result of the theory has been known to be collect using surveys ...
Darwin's theory of sexual selection is an intriguing one because it offers an explanation of human striving and cultural value systems. The theory is that humans who are more sexually desirable will have more offspring and thus their traits will be passed on to future generations to a greater extent than those of less sexually desirable humans. As opposed to Darwin's other theory, natural selection, those who are the best adapted to their environment will be more likely to pass on their genes, or, "survival of the fittest", you might call sexual selection "survival of the sexiest." The theory is intended to in part explain why, when humans diverged from other primates, the human brain tripled in size in just two million years. At first glance, this theory also seems to explain much of the motivation behind human culture and achievement. Upon closer inspection, there are some fairly conspicuous problems with it, especially when it is extended to describe not only human evolution in the distant past but it the present, but it may still be the most plausible explanation available to explain why humans mental capacities have expanded so far beyond those of our primate relatives.
Sprecher, Susan, Quintin Sullivan, and Elaine Hatfield. 1994. “Mate Selection Preferences: Gender Differences Examined in a National Sample.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, 6: 1074-1080.
5) These ideas of sexual selection and cryptic female choice can be applied to humans. Women choose mates based on career perspectives, attractiveness, and resources. All these allow her to ensure her children will be healthy and successful.
Evolutionary psychologists found evidence more than three decades ago for sex differences in jealousy towards infidelity (Burchell, & Ward, 2011). An abundance of studies have been conducted to increase our understanding of these sex differences, and a multitude of theories have been created to explain them (Levy, Kelly, & Jack, 2006; Sagarin & Guadagno, 2004; Tagler & Gentry, 2011; Walum et al., 2013). Jealousy towards infidelity is a specific type of jealousy which is only apparent in species that reproduce through internal fertilisation (Buss, Larsen, Westen & Semmelroth, 1992). There are two types of jealousy, including sexual jealousy and emotional jealousy. Sexual jealousy has been defined as jealousy elicited by a threat of sexual infidelity, which refers to any form of physical unfaithfulness that does not involve feelings (Levy, Kelly, & Jack, 2006). Whereas emotional jealousy is elicited from the threat of emotional infidelity, that is any form of unfaithfulness that involves a romantic connection and doesn’t necessarily entail the physical act of cheating (Levy, Kelly, & Jack, 2006).
This paper describes the potential study in how the societal norm of sexual permissiveness hampers the elusive attraction of “playing hard to get” within the genders. This is important in the advancement of social psychology in terms of situational factors influencing gender attraction qualities. This potential study may advance the concept of situational factors sometimes overpowering attribution factors when a population has a surplus of marriageable women, leading to a societal norm of sexual permissiveness and delayed marriages (Gutentag, and Secord, 1983). Hatfield, Walster, Piliavin, and Schmidt (1973) described “playing hard to get” as an attribution quality in that the women who is hard to get is a more desirable catch than the women who is too eager for an alliance. This paper analyzes studies and literatures on the impact of elusive attraction, sexual temptations, and situational factors that create attraction between the genders. It examines the elusive phenomenon, when does “playing hard to get” increase romantic attraction, sex differences in succumbing to temptations and the sex ratio question. After this examination, it will suggest the need for a study in how the societal norm of sexual permissiveness hampers the elusive attraction of “playing hard to get” within the genders.
Sexual selection comes in two forms. One, is direct competition between males for access to females. The other is through the females’ choice among possible mates. (pg. 148) In both types of sexual selection, the males compete for the females. The classic sexual selection arguments that Darwin first presented, were improved when genetics discovered how significant sexual recombination was to genetic variability and speciation. In our class discussion we were asked if animals and humans selected their partners in different ways. I agreed as well as disagreed that we are different in our selection. Humans and animals essentially need the same things, and when looking for a partner there isn’t much of a difference. We all look for the partner with the physical aspects that appeal to another, and for protection, the strongest is typically the best mate in both animal and human worlds. But for humans, emotions come into play, and we also chose on personality. One can have all of the qualifications that are “necessary” in the choosing of a mate, but if their personality does not cohabitate with the other party member, they will not be chosen for a lifelong relationship. Nonetheless, emotional choses may be the only true difference we have to that of
In order to understand the present lifestyles relating to different approaches and tactics applied by humans in mate choice preferences, there is the need to refer to Darwin (1859, 1871) evolutionary perspectives. Darwin (1871) sexual selection is the driving force for males and females reproductive quest for their genes survival. These driving forces have been classified into two categories as intra-sexual and intersexual mate selection.Intersexual selection is male sexual selection process whereby males compete with other males and the females choose the strongest as their ideal partner. Intra-sexual selection occurs when the male species fight among themselves and the strongest gain access to females for
This standard model is known as the seual strategies theory ( Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Buss argues that any species in which differences exist, there will be corresponding sex differences in mating behaviors. The biological reality in humans is that males need minimal investment, a single ejaculation, to reproduce their genes. The cost of female reproduction is traditionally years of investment including gestation, lactation and offspring care. In theory, such one sided investment has resulted in sex-specific selection strategies for reproductive success (Beckes et al. 2009). Human males ‘naturally’ track down opportunities to copulate with as many female partners as possible, specifically those who display signs of fertility. By ‘nature’ human females are more sexually cautious and prefer one male partner who can provide resources to be shared with their offspring. Though emphasis is on sex differences, sexual strategies theorists state that mating behavior--under specific circumstances--can be similar between men and women. The inevitable conclusion from their work is the differences between the sexes regarding mating preferences. The main focus of the sexual strategies theory is that all human mating is inherently strategic. Mating behavior is guided by psychological mechanisms that compel both males and females to desire certain qualities in a mate based
Despite the sound logic of the evolutionary argument, it does not account for what humans have had for a long time: contraception. This is why many people prefer to look at how this double standard formed from more of a sociological viewpoint. Women’s sexual con...
Lenton, A. P., & Francesconi, M. (2010). How humans cognitively manage an abundance of mate options. Psychological Science, 21(4), 528-533.
orientation on human mate selection preferences, as indicated by an analysis of personal advertisements. Behaviour, Volume 148 , 307-323. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
A fundamental step for understanding the links between human nature and intimate relationships is by understanding human sexuality. Alfred Kinsey, in his pioneering study on human sexual behaviour, illustrated the degree to which individuals differ in their sexual attitudes, beliefs and preferences (Kinsey, Pomeroy & Martin, 1948). In particular, a marked difference was highlighted in individuals’ sociosexual attitudes and behaviours. Following this, many of the sociosexual features individuals differ in, including preferred frequency of sexual intercourse, the number of different sexual partners they predict to have in the future, and their willingness to engage in uncommitted relationships, have shown to covary (Eysenk, 1976, as cited in Barnes, Malamuth & Check, 1984). Considered together, these features compose an individual difference dimension named sociosexuality (Snyder, Simpson & Gangestad, 1986). Sociosexuality reflects the tendency to engage in uncommitted, casual sexual encounters (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Those with a restricted sociosexual orientation typically prefer closeness and commitment from their romantic partner before engaging in sex (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Such individuals claim they rarely have one-night stands, and require emotional intimacy within a romantic relationship before feeling comfortable with sex (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Conversely, unrestricted individuals require little or no emotional bond with a partner in order to have sex. These individuals are more likely to be involved in extra-marital relationships (Seal, Agostinelli & Hannett, 1994), and exhibit more frequent displays of sexual assertiveness such as flirting (Simpson, Gangestad & Nations, 1996).