Compare and contrast evolutionary psychology approaches with the standard

social
science model approach. Discuss the differences in assumptions, and critically
evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches.

Whilst evolutionary psychology views human psychological urges as a consequence of environment

and ancestor experiences, it also supports the ideology that social interactions are deterministic of
human behaviour. Heil believed these instincts are inescapable but can be supressed, likening them
to being born as the first draft of a book which is edited constantly with each new experience (Heil,
2021). The social science model opposes this by claiming that humans are born a clean slate and are
shaped by socialisation and culture and controlled by the brain which acts as a “general purpose
computer” (Cosmides, 1992), whilst there is more evidence supporting this theory and it is far less
critiqued ,it cannot be denied that evolutionary psychology has significantly increased our
understanding in multiple fields including explaining gender differences in sexual attitudes (Jonason,
2016). A study composed of 9 key hypotheses and 22 predictors of sexual strategy showed empirical
evidence that women are more likely to adopt long term strategies when searching for sexual
partners and priorities (Schmitt, 1993). Reasoning behind this can be explained by either theory with
evolutionists claiming that its due to the male’s natural role in the animal kingdom as the resource
provider. It is argued that due to their smaller physique females require the aid of males in order to
secure a comfortable life for themselves and their offspring (Baumeister, 2017). This also explains
why women tend to prioritise reliable men with readily available resources and explains why men
are more likely to compete in their search for a mate than women (Baumeister, 2017). In addition to
this it highlights why men prioritise physical attraction and parental certainty, females who are
considered fitter are also naturally considered to be better suited partners (Bovet, 2019)due to their
heightened reproductive ability. This was shown by a longitudinal study involving 997 men which
showed that higher attractiveness predicted more reproductive success, it should be noted however
that these results are slightly skewed by the fact that more attractive people have higher marriage
probability (Jokela, 2010). These arguments are often refuted by social psychologists, they believe
that women’s desire for successful men is a result of inequality in the current social landscapes. One
study featuring 37 countries displayed this, it has been shown that in countries with more gender
equality, resourcefulness is less of a predictor of a women mating preference (Buss, 1989). This
could be because in most countries men are considered more powerful than women, sexual
interaction with these men could be the woman’s method of acquiring power (Buss, 1989). Studies
have also shown that successful women are much more likely to be influenced by other predictors
such as physical attraction (Buss, 1989).

These results conclude that these theories are subfields of general psychology and are unlikely to be
dichotomous. Most evolutionary psychology critiques appear stimulated by political ideology or
religious beliefs rather than sound scientific arguments (Fine, 2010). I believe evolutionary
psychology acts as a good framework which can be expanded on by social views.

References
Baumeister, R. (2017). Competing for love: Applying sexual economics theory to mating contests.
Journal of economic psychology, 230-241.

Bovet, J. (2019, 07 04). Evolutionary Theories and Men's Preferences for Women's Waist-to-Hip
Ratio: Which Hypotheses Remain? A Systematic Review. Retrieved from Frontiers in
psychology: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01221/full
Compare and contrast evolutionary psychology approaches with the standard
social
science model approach. Discuss the differences in assumptions, and critically
evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches.
Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences evoloutionary hypothesis tested in 37
cultures. Behavioural and brain science, 1-49.

Cosmides, L. T. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture.
oxford uni press.

Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: how our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New
York: WW Norton and company.

Heil, J. (2021). Appearance in reality. Durham.

Jokela, M. (2010). Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: Evidence from the
late 20th century United States. Evoloution and human behaviour, 2009.

Jonason, p. S. (2016). Quantifying Common Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology. evoloutionary

psychological science, 177-188.

Schmitt, D. B. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.

Psychological review, 204-232.

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. z tierpsychology, 410-433.