1

Alice Yu
Jesus College
B1
08/05/2023

Describe the key differences between evolutionary psychology and human behavioural
ecology and discuss which approach better explains human mate preferences.

Mate selection is a vital mechanism within the evolutionary process, often determining the
reproductive success of individuals. Therefore, the evolution of human mate preferences, a
key adaptive behaviour used in the process of mate selection, has been a key interest in both
the field of Evolutionary Psychology (EP) and Human Behavioural Ecology (HBE). Both
approaches examine adaptive behaviour from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary
Psychology focuses on internal explanations of behaviour, emphasising the role of modular
psychological mechanisms, which have evolved from selection pressures acting on our
Pleistocene ancestors in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA). Conversely,
Human Behavioural Ecology focuses on external, ecological explanations of behaviour,
emphasising the diversity and plasticity of behaviour across ecological contexts. This essay
will discuss the key differences of the EP and HBE approach, namely EP’s focus on
ancestral, behavioural adaptation in the EEA, while HBE focuses on current, immediate
ecological factors; and EP’s focus on behavioural universality and inflexibility, while HBE
focuses on behavioural variation in different ecological environments. I will conclude that
HBE better explains the cross-cultural variation in mate preferences, and differential
preferences for mating systems within different ecological environments. However, the two
approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and can be integrated to cover both
genetic and environmental factors, which may influence human behaviour.

A key difference between the two approaches is that evolutionary psychologists believe that
the psychological mechanisms underlying behavioural adaptations have evolved in the
Pleistocene epoch, whereas human behavioural ecologists believe that behavioural
adaptations depend on current, contemporary ecological factors. EP’s assumption that
behavioural adaptations were selected for in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness
(EEA), which is the ancestral environment to which a species is adapted (Bennet, 2018),
suggests that some behaviours used in contemporary society may be maladaptive; this is
referred to as environmental mismatch. This may pose several problems when explaining
human mate preferences, as many hypotheses regarding selective pressures acting on our
ancestors are uncertain, due to our poor understanding of the EEA. It also makes hypotheses
2
Alice Yu
Jesus College
B1
08/05/2023

on human mate preferences hard to rigorously test and falsify (Smith et al., 2000), which
means possible explanations may simply be just-so stories. Conversely, human evolutionary
ecologists focus more on observable behaviour affected by current ecological factors and
therefore do not face the problem with testing hypotheses. This is largely because HBE
examines the relationship between environment and behavioural phenotype, while ignoring
the psychological or genetic underpinnings of the adaptive behaviour. This is referred to as
the phenotypic gambit, which is assumption that genetic mechanisms and details of
inheritance can be ignored when examining evolutionary trajectories of adaptive behaviour
under ecological selection pressures (Brown, 2011). This means that models and hypotheses
on mate preferences and the environment are easy to test and observe in contemporary
cultures. An example of such a model is the Polygyny Threshold Model (PTM) (Orians,
1969), which suggests that level of polygyny increases with level of male resource holding.
Orians postulates that if there is substantial inequality in resource holding between males,
females may prefer polygyny as a mating strategy, as being the second wife of a wealthy
male may be better than being the first wife of a unwealthy male. This has been tested in the
Kipsigis population by Borgerhoff-Mulder (1988), which found that land ownership
correlated strongly with the number of wives a male had. Therefore, arguably HBE is better
for understanding and explaining preferences for mating systems as it focuses on current
factors influencing behavioural adaptation, rather than selection pressures in the EEA.

Having discussed the difference between EP and HBE regarding focus on ancestral versus
current selection pressures, another key difference is that EP emphasises the universality and
the relative inflexibility of behavioural adaptations, whereas HBE emphasises plasticity of
behavioural adaptations across different ecological contexts (Brown, 2011). EP argues that
behavioural adaptations are universal, focussing largely on specialised cognitive mechanisms
which have evolved due to selection pressures acting on our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Evolutionary psychologists argue these mechanisms underlying adaptive behaviour are
present in all individuals, and that any behavioural diversity observed within and between
populations are due to pre-existing behavioural variants in the EEA (Brown, 2011). On the
other hand, HBE posits that variation in adaptive behaviour largely reflects variations in
ecological factors in a specific environment or context. Behavioural ecologists emphasise the
3
Alice Yu
Jesus College
B1
08/05/2023

concept of decision rules, which allows individuals to weigh the costs and benefits of certain
behaviours when encountering specific ecological selection pressures. Therefore, arguably
EP has a more deterministic approach compared to HBE regarding adaptive behaviours in
humans.

Having discussed this key difference, I will now discuss these differences in relation to
mating preferences and examine which approach provides a better explanation for the
preferences we observe in humans. Evolutionary psychologists emphasise the importance of
universal psychological mechanisms which underly an individual’s mate preferences. An
example of this is the argument that we have evolved to find certain facial features attractive
as they signal high quality genes and immunocompetence in a mate. This serves an
adaptational function, as selecting mates based on these signals ensures that good qualities in
the mate will be inherited by offspring, which is advantageous. Examples of attractive facial
traits include symmetry, which is hypothesised to indicate an individual’s ability to
successfully develop while withstanding environmental pressures, as well as signalling
possible genetic defects from inbreeding and mutations (Little et al., 2011). Zahavi (1974)
hypothesised that certain features are found attractive as they handicap individuals possessing
the trait, so that only those who are the healthiest and of highest genetic quality can afford to
produce these high-cost traits. An example of this in humans is the prominent jawline in
males from high testosterone levels, which is associated with suppression of the immune
system. According to the handicap hypothesis, only males with high immunocompetence
would be able to afford having a sharp jawline at the cost of their immune system. Therefore,
the jawline signals to females that the male is a good choice in mate, as their offspring can
inherit a strong immune system.

On the other hand, due to HBE’s focus on behavioural diversity and flexibility, the field
primarily provides explanations for variation in mate preferences across cultures and
ecological context, rather than universally attractive features. A key example of this is the
study on mate preferences of women and men in a hunter-gatherer society in Hadza of
Tanzania (Marlowe, 2004), which contrasts the mate preferences of women and men in
industrialised countries in a study conducted by Buss (2007). Buss found that in 37
4
Alice Yu
Jesus College
B1
08/05/2023

industrialised societies, men placed greater importance on physical attractiveness, while

women placed a greater importance on financial prospects. He concluded that these sex
differences were universal and with adaptive function – aligning with the evolutionary
psychological perspective; women favoured financial status as it signals ability of paternal
investment, while men favoured attractiveness as it signals female fertility and fecundity.
However, the study in Hadza found an equal emphasis on physical attractiveness between
males and females. This difference between Hadza and industrialised societies is likely due to
the higher disease burden and lack of advanced healthcare in hunter-gatherer societies. This
places more emphasis on signals high immunocompetence, as it may be vital for the survival
of an offspring. Furthermore, mate preferences in industrialised nations may be influenced by
patriarchal societal expectations of the male breadwinner, as well as the male gaze for
females. This suggests that ecological factors and stresses in the environment leads to
differences in value of certain mate preferences. HBE’s explanation for variation of mate
preferences across ecological contexts may be a distinct advantage over EP.

In conclusion, evolutionary psychology places emphasis on underlying genetic and

psychological mechanisms which have evolved in our Pleistocene ancestors, whereas human
behavioural ecology focuses on current ecological factors which shape behavioural
adaptation. While human behavioural ecology has advantages in explaining mate preferences,
namely its ability to test hypotheses rigorously and empirically, as well as explain cross-
cultural variations in mate preferences, evolutionary psychology offers valuable insight to
possible universal mechanisms which underly adaptive behaviour, such as human attraction
towards features that signal high genetic quality and immunocompetence. However, the two
approaches are arguably not mutually exclusive, but rather focus on different aspects of
behaviour. The two approaches can be viewed in conjunction to shed light on both
psychological underpinnings and ecological factors which influence adaptive behaviour and
mating preferences.

Word count: 1406

References
5
Alice Yu
Jesus College
B1
08/05/2023

Bennett, K. (2018). Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA). In V. Zeigler-Hill &

T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1627-1
Brown, G. R., Dickins, T. E., Sear, R., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Evolutionary accounts of
human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 366(1563), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0267
Buss, D. M. (2007). The evolution of human mating. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 502–512.
Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature
15(4): 365-376.
Mulder, M. (1990). Kipsigis women’s preferences for wealthy men: Evidence for female
choice in mammals? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 27(4).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00164897
Orians, G. H. (1969). On the Evolution of Mating Systems in Birds and Mammals. The
American Naturalist 103(934): 589-603.
Smith, E. A., Mulder, M. B., & Hill, K. (2000). Evolutionary analyses of human behaviour: A
commentary on daly & wilson. Animal Behaviour, 60(4), F21–F26.
https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1478