Evolutionary Psychologys Explanations of Sex Differences in Human Behavior - Essay Example

? Critically assess Evolutionary Psychology’s explanations of sex differences in human behavior. inserts his/her Inserts Instructor’s name Course Title Date of submission The discourse on human behavior is aplenty considering that a lot of research has been conducted in this area. Research in this area draws itself from various disciplines of life; hence, it is no surprise that various perspectives have been offered in this regard by various researchers. The notion of sex differences is embedded in the Essentialist or, equivalently, the Social Constructionist view. The Essentialist view discusses the origin of differences based on sex based on inducements that are inherent by virtue of being a human being (Anselmi & Law, 1998). This perspective is often viewed as an alternative version to traditional sociology and meta-theory disciplines. The inconsistency in the notion of sex differences across a wide range of social backgrounds is incorporated into the Social Constructionist perspective. This is best understood by examining the underlying differences in the analysis of the genders across a range of social settings. Sexuality is defined as behavior linked to sexual aspects that are inherent by virtue of our being human beings and that lead to predisposed forms of sexual behaviors (Buss, 1989). This enhances the possibilities of the passing on of genes to future generations. The notion of selection of mates in the human race has given birth to extensive research regarding the prominent level of differences between the traits required by both genders in their potential partners (Buss, 1989). The era of mass production and division of labor gave birth to the notion of men being stereotyped as the bread winners and women being succumbed to being looked upon as nurturing and potential child bearers (Jureidini & Poole, 2002). This resulted in the concept of a patriarchal society that where the societal norms attributed aggressiveness to men and passiveness to women. According to this view, men were seen as the initiators of the reproductive process owing to the desire to command paternal attributes for which they adopted the highly risky game theory (strategy) in order to attract their desired mates (Miller, 2000). Women, on the other hand, were viewed as being spontaneously attracted to men owing to their “nurturing” nature and desire to care and look after their offspring (Miller, 2000). In a cross-study conducted by Buss it was discovered that men desired attractiveness and youth from their mates, whereas women desired men who were financially strong and had established careers (Buss, 1989). Psychologists from the evolutionary school, however, have demonstrated little attempt to bridge the notion of social and cultural quality. The Social Constructionist perspective focuses on the fact that the purpose of selection on one’s mates reflects an individual’s ability to derive the maximum benefit out of their tools with respect to the choices concerning the mating process. Therefore, the institution of marriage in this light is seen as an interaction between utility-maximizing men and women who seek stability in life through profitable exchanges (Becker, 2000). This view implies that the sex differences in the process of mate selection arise primarily due to profitable economic exchanges rather than in-built predisposed sexual behavior, heavily downplaying the fundamental reasoning of evolutionary psychologists. Hence, this view states that the reasoning behind selection of mates rests on the societal, cultural and environmental influences of the world in which we dwell which is depicted by the notion of gender roles ascribed by division of labor (Eagly & Wood, 1999). The above mentioned differences in viewpoints of psychologists from various schools are partially ascribed to the background and circumstances under which these psychologists grew up. For instance, the male psychologist Buss was brought up in a high-ranking background where the dominant belief was that one’s behavior is the result of how one adapts to one’s socio-cultural environment. Eagly and Wood, on the other hand, have a different perspective perhaps because they both are females who have a strong belief in having equal rights for all. Hence, their belief is rooted in the fact that sex differences are a direct result of the norms of the contemporary society. For instance, the age of marriage of females is changing owing to the shift in society’s norms as women become more career-oriented and shed traditional nurturing and child-bearing roles. The notion that sexuality is a learned behavior has been observed by various sociologists. Research conducted concerning primates (excluding the young ones) depicts the existence of sexual behavior that is abnormal. As a result of this abnormality, the primate that is affected will adopt sexual behavior that is “normal” after going through a process of “remedial socialization” which is referred to as the process in which humans are able to examine the sexuality of the other human (Jureidini & Poole, 2002). There are societies, such as those in Brazil, that believe in the fact that sexual behavior should be restricted because it is considered as an act of disgust (Gregor, 1985). Furthermore, differences in aggressive behavior based on sex also various across psychological literature. The evolutionary psychologists argue that aggression is a desirable state in various circumstances for animals, including humans (Buss, 1989). The fundamental rationale behind the act of aggression is that it helps individuals retain and gain secured control over their habitats(homes) without intrusion from others, so that they may benefit from the resources of their home (Lorenz, 1966). This functional view of aggression, however, has been renounced by modern psychologists who claim that no animal has an inherent capacity for aggressive behavior. In this domain, there has been a significant enhancement of women’s aggression in the past few years, primarily owing to incidents of violence against women and the resulting protests against equal rights. To conclude, this paper critically delineated on several areas of sex differences from the evolutionary psychology’s perspective. In some areas, such as the reasoning behind aggression, the evolutionary school’s logic has been more credible. It is important to note that the socio-cultural environment plays an astounding role in shaping human’s behavior (including sexual behavior).Hence, it is crucial to reconcile all views ( primarily the evolutionary and social constructionist) when understanding the rationale behind sexual behavior of human beings. References Anselmi, D.L. & Law, A.L., 1998. Questions of gender: Perspectives and paradoxes. Boston: Mc Graw-Hill. Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J., 1992. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Becker, G.S., 2000. The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Buss, D.M., 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, pp.1-49. Eagly, A.H. & Wood, W., 1999. The origins of sex differences in human behaviour: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, pp.408-23. Gregor, T., 1985. Anxious pleasure- the sexual lives of an Amazonian people. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jureidini, R. & Poole, M., 2002. Sociology: Australian Connections. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. Kimura, D., 1999. Sex and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lorenz, K., 1966. On Aggression. New York: Routledge. Miller, G., 2000. The mating mind: how sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: Heinemann. Sherry, D.F., Jacobs, L.F. & Gaulin, S.J.C., 1992. Spatial memory and the adaptive specialisation of the hippocampus. Trends in Neuroscience, 15(8), p.298–303. Read More