Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
One major flaw of this study is in the methodology. Although a large sample size was used, Buss did not use a
representative sample. In his study people living in rural areas were underrepresented as were those
individuals who were less educated as the study relied on people completing a questionnaire. The sampling
method created another problem as is varied widely across cultures and he used opportunity and self-selecting
samples, both of which are not random and could introduce sampling bias.
However there is research evidence to support Busss ideas. Schmitt tested the idea of sex differences in
mating preferences and surveyed over 16000 people from 53 countries. Schmitt found that men reported
wanting to have sex with more people than women did, supporting the idea of sex differences in human
reproductive behaviour.
Another sex difference is facial preferences. Facial preferences can also play an important role when choosing
a mate. The evolutionary view is that human facial attractiveness is liked to good genes. Research has shown
that females are attracted to males faces that have masculine features such as large jaw and prominent
cheek bones. These characteristics are seen as a result of the testosterone, but the hormone may also
become a handicap because it is also know to supplement the immune system. This means that only healthy
individuals can afford to produce these masculine traits indicating their dominance and strength of their
immune system to women who are then more likely to select them as possible mates. (Thornhill and
Gangestad). Males also have clear facial preferences, preferring females with more child like faces, including
large eyes, small noses and full lips. These characteristics indicate youth and fertility, making them more
attractive as potential mates (Thornhill and Gangestad). Interest in attractive female faces emerges early in
the first year of infancy this implies that the preference is more likely to be an evolved response rather than a
learned behaviour. There is also a significant degree of cross cultural agreement in rating of attractiveness
(Perrett). This shows that the criteria for facial attraction is not determined by cultural conventions.
Intersexual selection has been discussed in Busss research but there are also consequences for intrasexual
selection. Sperm competition is a type of intrasexual competition and it is important in determining which male
is successful in fertilising her egg. This perspective suggests competition for fertilisation not females. This has
resulted in males evolving larger penises, larger testicles, larger ejaculates and faster swimming sperm.
Harvey and May suggested that ethnic difference in testicle size may reflect adaptive differences in mating
strategies within different populations. Measurements made during autopsy showed that testicle size in two
Chinese samples was approx half the size of testicles in a Danish sample. This could be due to the norm of
arranged marriages in Chinese culture and therefore a reduction in sperm competition as they will have a
sexual relationship with one partner.
One evaluation point is the fact that some psychologists argue that evolutionary psychology is not the answer
to everything, Nicolson argues that the relevance of evolutionary factors has been overemphasised; she
argues that this is not how people really live and choose partners and decisions are more likely to be made on
a whole range of issues. She suggested that evolutionary influences on human reproductive behaviour are lost
in todays social context. This therefore suggests that evolutionary explanations are reductionist as they are too
simplistic and focus on innate instincts and ignore another other important contributory factory. This approach
ignores the role of social or cognitive factors.
It could also be argued that evolutionary explanations are deterministic. It assumes that all men will be
motivated to have a high number of sexual partners and be less inclined towards a long term committed
relationship and that all women are motivated by the resources a male has to offer. This ignores the role of free
will and choice that both males and females have in deciding what relationships they want. There are cases of
males that settle down with one person at an early age and women who do not decide to settle down and have
children.
Sex differences in reproductive behavior could also be explained by an alternative perspective. It could be
argued using the social approach that the idea that men are motivated to sleep around is something that is
created and reinforced by society and socialization. Behavioural approaches would also explain this via the
role of the media. The media could have a role via social learning theory as there are many social models in
the media where males are exposed to this behaviour. Sexually promiscuous behavior is also celebrated by
the male peer group and this could be an alternative reason for this sex difference.