A variety of theoretical
perspectives have been employed to explain the causes of what have typically
been considered robust sex differences in relationship attitudes and behaviors.
Some theories focus on evolutionary reasons for differences, while others focus
on the ways in which socialization might contribute to sex differences (Eagly
& Wood, 1999). Researchers who espouse the evolutionary perspective suggest
that sex differences in relationship behaviors and attitudes result from
different obstacles to reproductive success that men and women faced in their
ancestral past (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Sprecher, Regan, & McKinney, 1998).
Unconsciusly when people are searching for a couple they think about a person who have many skills, who is handsome or beautiful, who someone who has many good cualities.
Girls are searching for someone careful and protective and boys are searching for someone cute and delicate. Everybody are searching for someone with tastes in common
For example, sex
differences in infidelity might be explained by sex differences in the “minimum
parental investment” required to raise a child to maturity. The costs of
infidelity for men are relatively low. Men can cheat and potentially walk away
from any resulting offspring or they can decide to care for multiple partners
at once and thereby increase the likelihood that they will have viable
offspring. The costs for women are much higher. Should the infidelity result in
pregnancy, women will, at minimum, face a nine-month gestation period, the considerable
risks of childbirth, and the demands of breast-feeding.
Source:
Source:
Aries, Elizabeth (1996). Men and Women in Interaction: Reconsidering the
Differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barron, J.D. (2001). She Wants a Ring and I Don’t Wanna Change a Thing.
New York: Harper Collins.
Belle, D. (1985). Ironies in the contemporary study of gender. Journal
of Personality, 53, 400- 405.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario