FPR
Status Preference
Class: II - Sexual Selection
EPA Total Score: 4 /100
Townsend, J. M. (1987). Sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences among college students. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(5), 305-329.
Abstract: Seven hypotheses regarding sex differences in sexuality and partner selection were derived from evolutionary theory and tested among 400 college students. Subjects viewed color photographs of live models dressed in appropriate costumes and paired with descriptions of three potentially datable social types recognizable to college students. A MANOVA revealed significant sex differences in reported willingness to have sexual relations with stimulus persons compared to willingness to engage in higher-investment relationships, and in the effects of stimulus persons' status and physical attractiveness in determining thresholds of initial acceptability. Subjects also responded to the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS), the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, and statements concerning prospective spouses' relative income, occupational prestige, and physical attractiveness. Regression analyses revealed that males with more economic resources had more sex partners, lower AWS scores, and emphasized prospective spouses' physical attractiveness more and their socioeconomic status less than did their lessaffluent peers. Economic resources and AWS scores did not predict females' sexual behavior. Results from the MANOVA and the regressions suggested that the reported overlap of male and female selection criteria in higher-investment relationships masks sexual dimorphism in the process, criteria, and motivations underlying sexual attraction, mate evaluation, and selection.
Submitted by:
Supporting Evidence
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Theoretical evidence for this EPA.
10/100
Submitted by DJGlass
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Medical evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Physiological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Cross-Cultural evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Genetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.
Supporting Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is an Evolved Psychological Adaptation (EPA) - i.e., that it has been shaped by natural selection to solve a particular adaptive problem.
Challenging Evidence
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Theoretical evidence for this EPA.
0/100
Submitted by DJGlass
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Medical evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Physiological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Cross-Cultural evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Genetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.
Challenging Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is not an EPA - e.g., that it is a product of cultural learning or genetic drift, or maybe it does not exist at all. However over each line of evidence for a description.