Adaptive design, selective history, and women's sexual motivations.
I have discussed an ongoing program of research designed to examine the nature of specific sexual selection pressures that have played a role in the evolution of human mating. I have suggested that the evidence tentatively be interpreted as consistent with the existence of female preferences for traits that indicate good genes. Nonetheless, more research is needed before definitive conclusions can be reached. At the outset, I discussed several points about the application of adaptationism to an understanding of human behavior. First, special-design arguments are often critical to evolutionary explanations. Special design is not only evidence that natural selection has been at work, it can also reveal the nature of selection pressures that have shaped the organism. Second, special design often cannot be readily "read off" the observed phenotype. A convincing special-design argument may require a coordinated, coherent explanation (a nomological network; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) of multiple and varied observations. Third, observations that are "strange coincidences" if one's explanation is not correct, but expected if one's explanation is correct, are particularly informative pieces of evidence. The research on sexual selection illustrates these points. We have attempted to provide evidence for special design in females for preferring men who demonstrate developmental precision for the benefit of obtaining good genes. We can point to no one piece of evidence that directly demonstrates this special design. The explanation that women possess special design for preferring men who possess good genes in certain mating contexts (such as extra-pair sex), however, does provide a coherent account of a wide range of findings. At least one of these findings--that women prefer the scent of symmetrical men only when the probability of conception is high--was expected by this explanation, but has no obvious alternate explanation and hence appears to be a strange, peculiar coincidence if this explanation is wrong. By no means do we have a full and complete story here. The nomological network can and should be expanded in a number of ways and, thereby, the argument for special design tightened. Whether or not the special-design argument ultimately holds up to further scrutiny, however, I would like to think that our efforts to establish it have importantly contributed to an understanding of human mating.
Gangestad
S W
SW
University of New Mexico, USA.
D005075:Biological Evolution; D003380:Courtship; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008597:Menstrual Cycle / Q000502:physiology; D008957:Models, Genetic; D009042:Motivation; D012641:Selection, Genetic; D012725:Sexual Behavior / Q000502:physiology* / Q000523:psychology