Ruben Flores
From Drmills
Topic: Sex Differences in Mate Assessment During Courtship
Contributor: Ruben Flores
Class: Psych 310
The courtship phase of any relationship is truly an important one. One in which, waters are tested, potential mates are sized up, and partners are either deemed worthy or unfit. Sexual displays and various mate advertisements initiate this phase and so begins the careful assessment of a possible mate. Particularly interesting are the ways in which males and females actually assess each other during this phase, and how these practices differ between the two sexes. Typical sexual displays have been particular to the females of the species such as cosmetics and plastic surgery. It is quite possible, however, that in looking at various types of sexual displays we may find an answer to something seemingly unrelated - the often puzzling concept of human cooperation, or more specifically altruism. In a study done by Farrelly, Lazarus, and Roberts (2007) this is examined. Human cooperation often pushes the limits and goes well beyond what is predicted by existing theories of kinship (Hamilton, 1964) and reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971). Indirect reciprocity (Alexander, 1987; Nowak and Sigmund, 1998), and strong reciprocity (Gintis, 2000) attempt to address this puzzle and do a fair job but still do not quite meet the challenge. It is quite possible that cooperation and altruism can serve as a sexually selected display that attracts mates, either directly or through reputation (Miller, 2000; Roberts, 1998; Tessman, 1995; Zahavi, 1995). Altruism is, by definition, costly and as such it is counterproductive to survival. Yet just as elaborate ornamentation functions in courtship, so too could altruism function as a sexual display (Miller, 2000; Roberts, 1998; Tessman, 1995; Zahavi, 1995).
Participants were asked to play three different games: the Prisoner’s Dilemma game (PD), the “standard” Dictator game (SD), and a “charity” Dictator game in which the money given to the other individual is then given to a charity (CD). Participants played against other “participants” visually represented on a computer screen. Visual representations, however, were actually of completely virtual people, although participants were led to believe representations were of real people that they could meet or email at a future time. Their predictions were: participants should be more cooperative with partners of the opposite sex; and participants should be more cooperative towards more attractive members of the opposite sex. Regarding the first prediction, there was no effect in the PD game, males cooperated more with the opposite sex in the SD game but females did not, while both sexes cooperated more with females in the CD game. Second prediction received support in all three games. A sexual selection interpretation of these results is strengthened by the fact that cooperation was not influenced by the attractiveness of same sex partners in any game. When rated by participants, as predicted, more cooperative partners were rated as more attractive. This means that investment in altruism can pay off with an increase in perceived attractiveness and consequently in mating opportunity.
Once courtship has begun there are several practices that may be carried out by both partners. There is perhaps no other practice more used, however, than kissing. Kissing between sexual and/or romantic partners occurs in over 90 percent of human cultures (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970; Fisher, 1992). Even where kissing is nonexistent or condemned, sex partners may blow in each other’s faces, lick, suck, or rub their partner’s face prior to intercourse (Ford and Beach, 1951). Some non-human animals appear to participate in behaviors similar to kissing as well (Geer, Heiman, and Leitenberg, 1984). According to de Waal (2000), for example, bonobos regularly engage in bouts of deep tongue kissing. Many theorists suggest that kissing actually may be an investigatory process, placing the participants in close proximity to each other in order to smell, taste, and assess other features that may contribute to making mate assessments (Fisher 1983). Studies have shown that the taste and the breath of an individual's mouth can be indicative of underlying health problems (Durham, Malloy, and Hodges, 1993; Hoshi, Yamano, Mitsunaga, Shimizu, Kagawa, Ogiuchi, 2002; Rosenberg, 2002; Service, 1998). In addition to information provided by olfactory cues during kissing, there may be a transfer of sebum from the suction of the skin surface around the mouth and the surfaces of the buccal, oral, and gingival mucosae inside the mouth. The exchange of sebum during kissing could mediate pheromonal and hormonal information (Montagna and Parakkal, 1974; Nicholson, 1984).
Nicholson (1984) also contends that kissing may be a mechanism by which this pheromone and sebum exchange can induce bonding. Accepting a kiss may also be indicative of one’s commitment to that person (Zahavi and Zahavi, 1997, p. 218) and a sign that one is willing to accept the risk of contracting an illness. In addition, kissing may be used by both sexes as a reconciliation gesture and a way to reestablish a bond after an argument or a fight. Furthermore, activities causing sexual excitement, such as kissing, may increase levels of oxytocin in both sexes, which has been shown to play a role in interpersonal bonding (Carter, 1992), which is obviously of the utmost importance during this courtship phase. To observe the difference in the importance each sex places on kissing, Hughes, Harrison and Gallup (2007) conducted a study in which 1,041 college students completed one of three questionnaires measuring kissing preferences, attitudes, styles, and behaviors. Results from these questionnaires showed that participating females placed more importance on kissing as a mate assessment device and as a means of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the current status of their relationship with a long-term partner. In contrast, males place less importance on kissing, especially with short-term partners, and appear to use kissing merely to increase the likelihood of having sex. This suggests that kissing may play an important role as an adaptive courtship/mating ritual.
Yet another interesting way in which males and females may assess potential mates is in regards to the display of various qualities that the individual may value as important in the production and rearing of offspring. Research shows that in our ancestral environment, paternal care was critical for offspring survival to reproductive age (Hurtado and Hill, 1992; Marlowe, 2003). Although men regularly provide substantial care to offspring (geary, 2000), men’s lower level of obligatory investment in offspring relative to women’s (Trivers, 1972) and greater uncertainty of genetic relatedness to offspring (Symons, 1979) imply that men should be less likely than women to invest in offspring, at least on the average. For precisely this reason, evolutionary psychologists have suggested that women have evolved a preference for these very males who indeed show signs of this willingnessto invest in offspring, not merely displaying the abilityto do so. (Buss, 1989; La Cerra, 1995).
Bleske-Rechek, Remiker, Swanson and Zeug (2006) conducted two studies dealing with these implications of evolved adaptations in women to assess men’s willingness to invest in offspring (La Cerra, 1995). In the two studies, women’s evaluations of an opposite-sex target as a long-term partner and short-term sex partner were negatively impacted by viewing that target ignore a baby in distress. Men’s short-term sexual attraction to female targets, however, were completely unaffected by the context of the situation. In the second study women responded similarly to a man vacuuming and to a man interacting with a happy baby. The pattern of findings in both studies suggests that women may be sensitive to cues of a man’s willingness to invest in offspring, and this sensitivity is not moderated by sex-role beliefs or sexual permissiveness. The current series of studies supports the general conclusion that women more than men display sensitivity (and men more than women indifference) to an opposite-sex target’s behavior toward a baby. Sizing up men during the courtship phase of any relationship is, indeed, commonplace. If women told men they were simply “evaluating cues of their willingness to invest in their offspring,” I imagine many of these men would be running for the hills.
References
Farrelly, D.; Lazarus, J.; Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists Attract. Evolutionary Psychology. www.epjournal.net – 2007. 5(2): 313-329
Hughes, S.; Harrison, M.; Gallup, Jr., G. (2007). Sex Differences in Romantic Kissing Among College Students: An Evolutionary Perspective. Evolutionary Psychology. www.epjournal.net – 2007. 5(3): 612-631
Bleske-Rechek, A.; Remiker, M.; Swanson, M.; Zeug, N. (2006). Women More than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character: Two Experimental Demonstrations. Evolutionary Psychology. human-nature.com/ep – 2006. 4: 248-261
Rating scale:
Ratings ( 1 - 5):
- found appropriate research references relevant to a topic 4
- discovered, integrated and synthesized relevant information about the topic 4
- writing is of high quality: interesting, flows, analytic, organized 4
- used APA style referencing appropriately (including reference list) 4
- included as a list of web links to the original articles cited (if available), and included a list of additional resources relevant to the topic on the web 4
Total points: 20
