User:Jacobshanks10/Strategic pluralism

The theory of strategic pluralism was proposed by Steven Gangestad and Jeffry Simpson, two professors of psychology at the University of New Mexico and Texas A&M University, respectively. As humans evolved, several trade-offs were prevalent, especially involving spending time and energy on child-rearing and mating. Gangestad and Simpson noted that even in species where male mammals offer little or no paternal investment, females still prefer some males over others for mating purposes. The female preferences exhibited in situations where males are lacking parental investment can be attributed to good-gene sexual selection. Females observed in such conditions exhibited parallel behaviors as they revealed the tendency to select partners who were deemed genetically fit and reliable providers. Ultimately, as females evaluated males in this manner, it was evident that males who were on the positive side of the genetic fitness and reliability spectrums were favored as opposed to those who could not be such favorable mates for procreation. As a result, women evolved to prefer the men who exhibit viability and good condition, since such traits will likely be passed on to their offspring. Male and female mammals have revealed their different priorities, as males track females for opportunities to mate, while females track their environment for the necessary resources for parental investment. Such discoveries regarding the different ways male and female mammals prefer mating with one another have suggested that females prefer more long-term relationships, while males prefer short-term. However, there are instances of both sexes displaying both short term and long term mating preferences in specific contexts.

The strategic pluralism theory developed by Gangestad and Simpson has been empirically supported; however, there are still gaps of uncertainty which need to be filled. For example, the theory lacks information pertaining to the developmental processes which have influenced strategic variation in male and female mammals. Therefore, the biological reasoning behind the female evaluation of male partners remains unclear. Instead, research has only offered suggestions for why strategic selection occurs.