Biology:Strategic pluralism
Strategic pluralism (also known as the dual-mating strategy) is a theory in evolutionary psychology regarding human mating strategies that suggests women have evolved to evaluate men in two categories: whether they are reliable long term providers, and whether they contain high quality genes.[1] The theory of strategic pluralism was proposed by Steven Gangestad and Jeffry Simpson, two professors of psychology at the University of New Mexico and Texas A&M University, respectively.
Experiments and studies
Although strategic pluralism is believed to occur for both animals and humans, the majority of experiments have been performed with humans. One experiment concluded that between short term and long-term relationships, males and females prioritized different things. It was shown that both preferred physical attractiveness for short term mates. However, for long term, females preferred males with traits that indicated that they could be better caretakers, whereas the males did not change their priorities.[2]
The experimenters used the following setup: subjects were given an overall 'budget' and asked to assign points to different traits.[3] For long-term mates, women gave more points to social and kindness traits, agreeing with results found in other studies suggesting that females prefer long-term mates who would provide resources and emotional security for them, as opposed to physically attractive mates.[4][5] The females also prefer males who can offer them more financial security as this would help them raise their offspring.[6]
Females have also chosen males who have more feminine appearances because of a (hypothesized) inverse relationship between a male's facial attractiveness and effort willing to spend in raising offspring. That is, in theory, a more attractive male would put in less work as a caretaker while a less attractive male would put in more work.[7] On average, there is a wider amount of variability in male characteristics than in females. This suggests there are enough of both males more suited for short-term relationships and those more suited for longer relationships.[8]
See also
References
- ↑ Steven, Gangestad (2000). "The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4): 573–644. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X. PMID 11301543. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2501/4111342d5d63846b59242502e0dde4fd7602.pdf.
- ↑ Li, Norman P.; Kenrick, Douglas T. (2006). "Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why." (in en). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (3): 468–489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 16594832.
- ↑ Li, Norman P.; Bailey, J. Michael; Kenrick, Douglas T.; Linsenmeier, Joan A. W. (2002). "The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs." (in en). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (6): 947–955. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 12051582. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/718.
- ↑ Baize, Harold; Schroeder, Jonathan (1995). "Personality and Mate Selection in Personal Ads: Evolutionary Preferences in a Public Mate Selection Process". Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 10: 517–536.
- ↑ Landolt, Monica A.; Lalumière, Martin L.; Quinsey, Vernon L. (January 1995). "Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach". Ethology and Sociobiology 16 (1): 3–23. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-v. ISSN 0162-3095.
- ↑ Hendrickson., Eagly, Alice (1987). Sex differences in social behavior : a social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0898598049. OCLC 15084713.
- ↑ Penton-Voak, I; Cahill, S; Pound, N; Kempe, V; Schaeffler, S; Schaeffler, F (Summer 2007). "Male facial attractiveness, perceived personality, and child-directed speech". Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (4): 253–259. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.03.002. ISSN 1090-5138.
- ↑ Archer, John; Mehdikhani, Mani (2003). "Variability among males in sexually selected attributes." (in en). Review of General Psychology 7 (3): 219–236. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.3.219. ISSN 1089-2680.
 |  |
