Week 3 - Evolutionary Perspectives on Love

Evolutionary psychology

study of behaviors (and thoughts and feelings) through the lens of evolutionary biology. Assumes that human behavior is a result of evolutionary processes over time – these behaviors were adaptive in some way

Evolution by natural selection

Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive

Survival of the fittest

“fittest” = reproductive success; passing on genes, having babies

Sexual selection

natural selection acting on mate-finding and reproductive behavior

Kin selection

natural selection in favor of behavior by individuals that may decrease their chance of survival but increases that of their kin (ex: a mean by which sexual organisms propagate their DNA)

• Group and not just individual-level selection

Red queen hypothesis

hypothesis that species must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive

Explains why sexual selection may be preferred over asexual reproduction

• Offspring have variety 

• Better chance of survival - less susceptible to viruses, germs, threats 

The Standard Narrative

• Males and females assess the values of mates from perspectives based upon their differing reproductive agendas/capacities

• Opposing reproductive strategies

  • Male competition vs female choice

  • Men are promiscuous (sperm are plentiful), women are choosy (eggs are scarce)

Sociocultural Theories (from Lehmiller)

Biology may play some role in different matching strategies between sexes, but social structure plays a larger role

• In countries with more gender equality, men and women’s partner preference are more similar

• Men and women were equally likely to say yes to casual sex if sex with an attractive famous person (rather than a random stranger) were offered

• When they thought they were hooked up to a lie detector, men and women in a study reported the same amount of sexual partners

• In a speed dating event, men and women were equally choosy if women were forced to initiate

critique: is this mind-body dualism?

Alternative perspective from Sex at Dawn

Authors posit that “we don’t see [current mating behaviors] as elements of human nature so much as adaptations to social conditions—many of which were introduced with the advent of agriculture no more than ten thousand years ago.”

• supporting evidence for their hypotheses are correlational and some have criticized the authors for overstating the strength of their data (some have argued, misunderstanding or misrepresenting views of evolutionary psychologists)

Monogamy (zoologist definition)

A prolonged exclusive mating relationship between one male and one female

• by ‘essentially exclusive,’ we imply that occasional covert matings outside the pair bond, (i.e. ‘cheating’) do not negate the existence of monogamy

• ergo, monogamy doesn’t imply fidelity

• however, it is often misused to imply sexual fidelity/colloquially understood to mean “fidelity”

Is monogamy natural in humans (according to Helen Fisher)?

Yes, even if there are exceptions

• “pair-bonding is a trademark of the human animal”

Polygamy in culture

• A minority of 853 cultures recorded prescribe monogyny (one female)

  • Western cultures are included in this

• Most (84%) of these cultures permit polygyny

  • However: only 5-10% of men in these societies actually have several wives simultaneously

• Polyandry is rare (permitted in 0.5% of societies)

The Oneida Community

• John Humphrey Noyes started a colony in the 1830s

  • Wanted to create a Christian, communist utopia

  • Colony settled in Oneida, NY in 1847

• Everyone lives in one mansion on communal lands and shared everything - including sexual partners

  • Romantic love for a particular person was considered selfish and shameful

  • Despite Noyes’ regulations, he wasn’t able to keep men and women from falling in love and forming clandestine pair-bonds

• Colony disbanded after a revolt in 1879

“Natural or not, what matters to us is that presently many men and women seem to find monogamy, translated as mandatory sexual and emotional exclusiveness, quite difficult to maintain”

Esther Perel

“Monogamy may or may not be natural to human beings, but transgression surely is.”

Esther Perel

Consensual Non-monogamy subtypes

• Open relationships

• Swinging

• Polygamy

• Polyamory 

Instrumentality

The extent to which someone is able to help us achieve our present goals

• This definition acknowledges that instrumentality can be idiosyncratic and changes over time depending on what a person’s goals are

  • We want people whose presence is rewarding (both directly and indirectly)

  • People who fulfill our need to belong

Influences on attraction: proximity

Proximity/propinquity effect

• Friendship choices at MIT

• Students in your class who sit nearby

Familiarity

• Mere exposure effect: exposure makes impressions more positive

  • However, they seem to have to start at least neutral

  • Our enemies are also more familiar/close to us

Convenience

• Proximity is rewarding and distance is costly

Influences on attraction: physical attractiveness

We assume beautiful people also have good personalities and are more promiscuous

• Certain standards for beauty seem relatively stable across cultures

  • 0.7 WHR (waist to hip ratio) in women and 0.9 WHR in men

  • However, economic and cultural context can lead to some differences in perception of beauty

• Things found physically attractive seem to align with evolutionary theories

• People tend to engage in matching in levels of physical attractiveness in couples

Influences on attraction: reciprocity

Potential partner’s desirability = physical attractiveness * probability of accepting you

• being hard to get doesn’t work, but being selectively hard to get does

  • We don’t want to get rejected, but we want someone who doesn’t say yes to just anyone

Influences on attraction: similarity

We like people who resemble us - couples tend to match in demographic backgrounds of origin, attitudes, and personalities to some degree

Opposites don’t attract… but it can seem like it sometimes

• People sometimes like others based on perceived similarity, but outside observers can tell that they’re different

  • Finding out dissimilarities takes time

• Might be attracted to people who are mildly different from us but like our ideal selves

• Dissimilarity among members of a couple decreases over time

Overall, what do people want?

• Warmth and loyalty

• Attractiveness and vitality

• Status and resources

• Slight differences between men and women on how important attractiveness vs resources are

  • Men values attractiveness a bit more and women value resources a bit more

  • However, warmth and loyalty are more important to both

Attraction processes among LGBTQ people

• Physical attraction - as important as to heterosexuals

• Similarity - may not be as important (more interracial/interethnic relationships)

  • May be smaller field of eligibles/smaller dating pool

• Proximity may play less of a role

  • In 2012 study, 61% of gay and lesbian couples reported meeting online vs 23% of heterosexual couples