Here is an essay I've done on sexual selection guys, hope it helps! Would really appreciate any feedback too! I think it's a little too long :\ what could I crop out that's not really needed? And is my AO1/AO2 balance okay? I feel I've done a little too much on AO1?
Outline and evaluate the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour (9+16 marks)
Sexual selection is where humans (and animals) compete with each other in order to mate with a partner who poses the most adaptive traits in order to pass on their genes, producing healthy offspring. Darwin (1874) came up with two sexual selection processes. Intrasexual selection is where members of one sex (usually males) compete with each other for access to members of the opposite sex. The victors are able to mate and so pass on their genes, whereas the losers do not. Whatever traits lead to success in these same-sex contests will be passed on to the next generation. Intersexual selection involves the preference of one sex for members of the opposite sex who possess certain qualities. These preferences are linked to traits that could be passed on to offspring (i.e. selection for ‘good genes’), as well as the mate’s ability to give protection and support to offspring (i.e. selection for ‘good parents’). Humans are perceptually ‘pre-programmed’ to attend to displays of these important indicators, which in turn increase their willingness to mate with the individual who possesses them.
There are considerable sex differences in short-term and long-term mating preferences. According to parental investment theory, men have evolved a greater desire for casual sex, and would ideally seek sex earlier in a relationship. Female behaviour would not be subjected to the same evolutionary pressures. In contrast to women, men appear to lower their standards in the context of short-term mating oppurtunities (Buss and Schmitt 1993) and then show a marked decrease in attraction following sex. A study by Clarke and Hatfield (1989) supports sex differences in short-term mating strategies. Men and women experimenters approached total strangers on a college campus and said, ‘Hi, I’ve noticed you around college and I find you very attractive’. They then asked them one of three questions, 1) Would you go on a date with me, 2)Would you go back to my apartment with me? 3) Would you have sex with me? Of the females approaches, 50% agreed to the date, 6% agreed to going back to his apartment and 0% agreed to have sex. Of the males, 50% said yes to the date, 69% to go back to her apartment and 75% agreed to sex. These sex differences provide compelling evidence that men have evolved psychological mechanisms to ensure success in long-term mating.
In long-term mating, both sexes typically invest heavily in offspring. As a consequence, sexual slection should favour high levels of choosiness in both sexes. Poor choice would result in a waste of valuable resources. Because women have an obligatory biological investment in their children, they are predicted to be more particular about their choice of mate. Buss’s research (1989) explored what males and females looked for in a marriage partner. The study involved over 10,000 people from 37 different cultures. They found that women more than men desired mates who were ‘good financial prospects’. This was translated into a desire for men with resources. Men placed more emphasis on physical attractiveness. Research has consistently shown that physical appearance provides clues to a woman’s health and hence her fertility and reproductive value. Men universally wanted mates who were younger than them- an indication that men value increased fertility in potential mates. Both sexes wanted mates who were intelligent (linked to skill at parenting), kind (linked to interest in a long-term relationship and dependable (linked to willingness to help a mate in trouble).
The problem with studies such as Buss’s suffer from a problem of validity; ie. They give us an indication of explored preferences rather than being a reflection of what actually happens in real life. This means that the findings of such studies cannot be used as a template to explain the preferences of all men and women, ie. They cannot be generalised. However, many real-life studies support these mate-choice hypotheses. For example, a study of actual marriages in 29 cultures (Buss, 1989) confirmed that men do choose younger women. In fact, men who divorce and remarry tend to marry women who are increasingly younger than them.
Another issue is gender bias in short-term mating research. Although research consistently reports that men more than women have a desire for a variety of sexual partners and a greater willingess for casual sex, men could never have evolved this desire in the absence of willing females. Despite the fact that short-term mating has a considerable potential loss for the woman, there must be some benefits. Greiling and Buss (2000) suggest that she could profit in a number of ways, including short-term mating as a way of leaving a poor-quality relationship or as a way of producing more genetically diverse offspring. And implication of this sort of gender bias in research is that men are portrayed in a negative light and this could, in effect, change women’s perception of men.
Overall, the evolutionary perspective of sexual selection has done well to explain why humans ‘seek’ the traits they do and why it varies between the sexes. However, it can be accused of sexism as it has ignored homosexual relationships in which it is impossible to pass on genes. Even though those in homosexual relationships are unable to pass on their traits they still show the suggested adaptations, eg. Females are less willing to engage in casual sex (Buss and Schmitt, 1993) and men are looking for young attractive men, ingoring resources. Also, men in homosexual relationships are also more promiscuous. This shows that there must be a biological factor evolved out into humans from our evolutionary past.
Human behaviour is very complex. Sexual selection is highly reductionist as it reduces the complex behaviour to the selection of genes and ignores the range of possible environmental factors such as media and culture values.