Milestone One: Evolution and Sexual Strategies

Social psychology and evolutionary science revolve around understanding the mating behavior of humans. According to classic theories, men and women developed different mating preferences because of biological and reproductive interests, such as the Sexual Strategies Theory proposed by Buss and Schmitt (1993). The relevance of societal and cultural factors on these preferences has since been tested by modern researchers, challenging their universality: Milestone One: Evolution and Sexual Strategies.

This paper will compare the original theory to a more recent one, an empirical study in Norway by Mehmet Mehmetoglu et al. (2024), showing how environmental factors could mediate evolved tendencies. Analyzing the two studies, we could determine how the theory is relevant to social situations in modern times.

Research Question or Hypothesis

Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) evolutionary hypothesis is that men and women developed different psychological mechanisms that determine mating behavior based on the short-term and long-term context. The most essential prediction was that men would be more likely to participate in short-term mating and show interest in physical attractiveness since they have a reduced minimum parental investment compared to women, who would prefer a resource potential and long-term commitment aspect of the partners to gain reproductive and survival benefits.

Mehmet Mehmetoglu et al. (2024) explicitly tested six hypotheses arising from SST based on a Norwegian sample. They hypothesized that (H1) women would insist more than men on resources, and (H2) men would insist more on physical attractiveness. They also made a hypothesis that the observations should hold even after holding differences in materialism (H3) and egalitarianism (H4) and that materialism and egalitarianism should serve as moderators in differences among different genders (H5-H6). Their research intended to test the validity of sex-based predictions made by SST in the new, egalitarian setting.

Literature Review

In their work, Buss and Schmitt (1993) set forth the Sexual Strategies Theory (SST), which is based on evolutionary psychology and offers the idea that men and women developed two different mating strategies as they faced different reproductive challenges. Based on the Trivers parental investment theory and much cross-cultural evidence, the authors have summarized the previous findings that men preferred physically attractive partners (a signal of fertility). In contrast, women like men who have resources and future commitments. Their study integrated the study on mate preferences, reproductive behavior, and strategic solutions to the mating problems when applied to various time settings.

Likewise, Mehmet Mehmetoglu et al. (2024) summarized early contributions to SST, such as the cross-cultural research of Buss, and combined them with modern criticism of the theory in terms of universality. They remarked that SST entirely overlooks the ecological factors like materialism and egalitarianism that are likely to temper the desires of a mate. They have conducted a literature review dealing with the recent findings related to changing values of mates across nations and socioeconomic contexts, and this has indicated that the forecasts of SST might need rectification in contexts. They stressed the increasing demand in the literature to examine societal influences next to biological determinations in the light of interpreting human mating behavior.

Research Methodology

Buss and Schmitt (1993) used a theoretical approach using empirical evidence from self-reported surveys and cross-cultural and experimental experiments. They comprised college students and adults from different nations. In the studies, the data on mate preferences, preferred number of mates, time preferences of sexual involvement, and selectivity were taken. The methodology of its research was created based on evolution logic. In contrast, the strategies of both sexes were compared in terms of the different mating durations.

Mehmet Mehmetoglu et al. (2024) employed a cross-sectional survey design, including 1,193 Norwegian adolescents and young adults. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM), and measure values included scales that had been previously validated, examining mate choice criteria, materialism, and egalitarianism. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used in which participants answered their preferences regarding resourcefulness and attractiveness traits. The research made validity by conducting an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and made the measurement invariance over gender to make a meaningful comparison.

Research Results

According to the research by Buss and Schmitt (1993), SST was corroborated empirically. Men were consistently found to show more interest in short-term mating, desire to have more sex partners, and were open to having sex with a person whom they just met briefly. They gave physical attractiveness a higher value than women, and the women gave importance to financial prospects, ambition, and inclination to invest in children. These findings were cross-cultural and consistent with the hypothesis of evolved sexual differences in mating preferences.

By contrast, Mehmet Mehmetoglu et al. (2024) partially supported SST. Men, as expected, rated physical attractiveness higher than women, irrespective of their social orientation. Nevertheless, this support of female resource preference over men was only realized in the females after controlling the level of materialism in distinct disapproval to the initial statement by the SST explaining that women have evolved female context-free preference of resources. Also, materialistic women were more interested in resources, and egalitarian men were less interested in attractiveness, which shows that societal values are significant in determining whom people find attractive to be mates.

Research Conclusions

According to the research findings of Buss and Schmitt, mating styles among human beings are evolutionary adaptations influenced by the reproductive challenges posed upon both sexes (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). They pointed out that although both sexes have a set of mating tactics, the most favored strategy and related mate preferences vary because sex-specific adaptive pressures are in the differing strategies. They maintained that SST predicts human mating patterns using biological, psychological, and contextual factors.

The study by Mehmet Mehmetoglu et al. (2024) concluded that the SST can provide a helpful framework, particularly by illuminating why men prioritize attractiveness. However, the theory’s claims regarding women’s preference for the resources used by it require reconsideration. The results emphasized the significance of such cultural and social moderators as materialism and egalitarianism. The argument presented by the authors was that SST needs to be modified to consider flexibility in the environment because the differences in mate preferences that belong to sex are not as fixed and universal as previously perceived.

References

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204

Mehmet Mehmetoglu, Ilmari Määttänen, & Matthias Mittner. (2024). Testing Sexual Strategy Theory in Norway. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), 438–438. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060438

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Assignment Information

PSY 530 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric

Overview
This milestone will help you get started on the final project by selecting a classic and more current study and writing a detailed summary of each.

Prompt
First, choose a classic study from the Ten Classic Studies Learning Aid located in your Reading and Resources. Second, find a more current study on the same general topic that was conducted and published in the past 10 years. For example, you could choose Milgram’s obedience study AND choose a modern study on obedience (for example, obedience in the workplace, military, or perhaps another setting).

Milestone One: Evolution and Sexual Strategies

Summarize each of the two studies in detail. Include the reference for each study. Your summary for each article should include information about the literature review, research question or hypothesis, methodology, results, and the conclusion.

What to Submit
This summary should be a paper of about 2 double-spaced pages, submitted in Microsoft Word, with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and all sources cited in APA format within the document and in the reference list.