Outline and evaluate the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive

behaviour [25 marks]

Human reproductive behaviour is an evolutionary approach; it tries to explain human behaviour from the point
of view of how it might have evolved. It is based on the idea that our behaviour is influenced by instincts left
over from our evolutionary past when they were adaptive, so increasing our chances of survival. Sexual
selection is the process in which a species changes over time as a result of the passing on of the genes that
make one individual more attractive than another. This happens because members of the same species
compete with other members of the same sex for a mate. The members who have features that make them
more attractive are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes. This theory is important in explaining why
males and females of some species look so different, for example, male and female peacocks because the
males have long brightly coloured tails which reduce chances of survival with predators however as female
peacocks are attracted to this feature, it shows that males with better tails have more chance of reproducing
and passing on their genes therefore the characteristic evolves in the species even though it reduced survival.
There are two types of sexual selection, intrasexual selection (mate competition) and intersexual (mate
choice). Intrasexual selection is when member of one sex (usually males) compete with each other for access
to members of the opposite sex. The victors are able to make and pass on their genes, whereas the losers do
not. Whatever trait leads to success in these same sex contests will be passed on to the next generation.
Intersexual is a form of selection which involves the preferences of one sex for members of the opposite sex
who possess certain qualities, for example, if females prefer tall men, over time there would be an increase in
the number of tall males in the population. The preference of one sex determines the areas in which the other
sex must compete. This may be in terms of plumage (in peacock) or economic resources (in humans). Ridley
pointed out that in the past 100,000 years the human species has hardly evolved at all and therefore our
psychology is very much as it would have been when we were all hunter gatherers. He believed that men are
driven to behave in ways that will maximize the probability that they will reproduce. (Gain resources, gain
power, lure women, mate with as many women as possible etc.) Where as women are driven by the desire to
secure the best genes possible for their children and to be protected by a powerful man in order to maximize
the chances of their children surviving. Thornhill and Palmer went further and proposed that rape has evolved
as a mechanism to allow unsuccessful men to reproduce. This theory has proved highly controversial. Rose
and Rose believe that this amounts to justifying rape ad a good this for a species.
Buss aimed to test the hypothesis that the factors affecting mate choice in men and women are consistent
across a range of cultures and therefore demonstrating the role of evolutionary factors. Buss used
questionnaires to measure the importance of factors affecting mate choice. He found that 36/37 cultures
women emphasized good financial prospects in a mate than did men and in 29/37 cultures women placed
significantly more emphasis on ambition and industriousness than did men. This is in line with evolutionary
theory as they are trying to secure a mate with good resources to care for them and their children. In all 37
cultures men rated ideal age of a mate as younger than did women and looks were more important in men
than women in all 37 cultures. This is because youth and attractiveness signifies fertility. Therefore most
findings supported the idea that men and women differ consistently in the characteristics they find attractive in
a potential mate. This shows evidence of intersexual selection as males and females look for different things in
a potential mate.
However there are many strengths and weaknesses. For example in the case of homosexuality, Busss
argument cannot account for homosexual relationships which clearly do not contribute to the survival of the
species. Same sex relationships seem to have existed in most cultures throughout recorded history, so
explanation for sexual selection cannot explain these relationships, therefore it cannot be generalised to all
relationships.
A second weakness related to mate choice in real life. Busss survey of mate choice suffers from a serious
problem of validity. The research has focused on preferences rather than on real life choices. For example,
people may express a preference for an ideal partner (intelligent, kind etc.) but may have to settle for less. This
therefore means that the study does not tell us about actual mate choice. However a study of real life
marriages has conformed many of these predictions, such as, men do choose younger women (Buss).

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.