Evolutionary Psychology's Explanation of Sex Differences

Disclosing human behaviour has initiated study and research from a capacious range of disciplines, effectuating varied perspectives on human behaviour. Essentialist or social constructionist perspective has been considered by psychologists to examine the origin of sex differences (Anselmi & Law, 1998). Essentialism articulates that sex differences commence from inducements that are intrinsic in human beings, and present itself as an alternative meta-theory to conventional sociology. The discrepancy in sex differences across social contexts is considered by social constructionist view-point, understood by the interpretation of the sexes amidst specific contexts. Highly contrasting theories emanate when apprehending factors responsible for human sex-linked behaviour, thus making it strenuous to critic the factors that essentially manipulate and manage behaviour (Jureidini & Poole 2000). Hence, the current essay provides a cogent explanatory framework for understanding the causation of sex differences, anchored primarily from evolutionary psychology, with criticisms reported against its concepts on sex differences.

Sexuality is sexual behaviour, epitomized as the inherent behavioural predispositions, augmenting the probability of passing genes into future progeny (Buss, 1989). Human mate selection has generated a substantial degree of research, instilling a pronounce degree of sexual differentiation between the characteristics that men and women desire in potential mates (Buss, 1989; Buss & Barnes, 1986). The division of labour (Durkheim, 1964) observed men inclined to be stereotyped and envisaged as bread winners, with the role of child carers and nurturers stereotyped as women, patriarchy acknowledged as the custom with aggressive nature expected from men, and nurturing and passive nature expected from women (Jureidini & Poole, 2001). Males endeavoured to reproduce and desired the need to be paternal, and have evolved high risk high stakes game strategy to attract mates (Miller, 2000). Women are impulsively attracted to males with the ability to protect and provide for her and her children (Zajdow, 2002). Buss's (Buss et al., 1990) remarkable cross- cultural study found that males are inclined to yield mates with physical attractiveness and youth, while women desire mates with more financial power.

Evolutionary psychologists, however, have dedicated little attention to the synergy between the social and cultural environment quality. Social structural perspectives theorize the motive of mate selection mirror people's effort to make the most of their utilities with respect to mating choices. Marriage is typified as functioning between utility-amplifying women and men to reach stability with economic exchanges (Becker, 1976), implying that differences in mate selection are accountable due to lucid economic arrangements than from the perspective of inherited predispositions (Tattersall, 1998). Eagly and Wood (1999), criticizing the evolutionary perspective, concluded that mate preferences are shaped by the society in which we live today, and conflicting assignment of role portrayed due to sexual division of labor. Potential accounts for these unlike views include the circumstance of each psychologist. Buss, a male evolutionary psychologist, grew up with an influential background in beliefs that behaviour is a result of how one adapts to their environment. Eagly and Wood elucidate the results contradictorily possibly because they are both females who credit strongly in equality for all, and therefore observe the differences in preferences as a consequence of the principles of today's society; a key example being the preferred age of females at marriage, affected by a more career-oriented