Discuss evolutionary explanations for partner preferences 16 marks

Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences are based on the principle of natural selection. Traits that enhance reproductive success are passed down through generations because they increase the likelihood of gene transmission. One key concept is anisogamy, which refers to the differences between male and female sex cells. Males produce many small, mobile sperm and can reproduce frequently with little biological cost, whereas females produce fewer, larger eggs and invest heavily in offspring. As a result, females are more selective in their partner preferences, prioritising resource availability and stability, while males are more likely to prioritise indicators of fertility, such as youth and physical attractiveness.
This leads to inter-sexual selection, where females choose males who demonstrate good genes or the ability to provide resources, and intra-sexual selection, where males compete for access to females, favouring traits like strength and dominance. These evolutionary pressures shape human preferences and behaviours in mate selection.

One strength of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences is that they are supported by empirical research. Buss (1989) conducted a cross-cultural study involving over 10,000 participants in 37 countries. He found that women consistently preferred mates with good financial prospects, while men preferred younger, physically attractive women. This supports the evolutionary prediction that mate preferences are influenced by anisogamy, with men seeking signs of fertility and women seeking resource security. However, this research used self-report questionnaires, which may suffer from social desirability bias, potentially reducing the validity of the findings.

A weakness is that the theory may lack temporal validity. In modern societies, traditional gender roles have shifted, and women are now more financially independent and less reliant on male resources. This suggests that resource-based mate preferences may not be as relevant today, reducing the applicability of evolutionary explanations in contemporary settings. Nevertheless, recent studies still find consistent sex differences in partner preferences, suggesting that evolutionary pressures may continue to influence behaviour despite societal changes.

A further limitation is that evolutionary explanations may lack population validity.
These theories mainly focus on heterosexual, reproductive relationships and do not account for same-sex relationships or people who do not want children. This narrow focus limits the generalisation of the theory across all types of human relationships.
However, some researchers argue that even non-reproductive sexual behaviour can serve adaptive functions like social bonding and alliance formation, which may still be shaped by evolutionary mechanisms.

A strength of evolutionary explanations is that they are supported by cross-cultural consistency. Studies such as Buss (1989) and Singh (1993) have found similar patterns in mate preferences across a wide range of cultures, including both Western and non-Western societies. This suggests that partner preferences may be universal and biologically driven rather than culturally determined, supporting the universality predicted by evolutionary theory. However, some variations still exist between cultures, and cultural norms can influence how certain traits (e.g., body size, dominance) are valued, indicating that cultural relativism may still play a role alongside biology.