Answered>Order 20417

Create a 3 page essay paper that discusses Buss’s Strategic Conflict Model Between Two Sexes.

Download file to see previous pages…

These studies, according to Buss, provide modest support for the strategic conflict model and implicate the negative emotions of anger and upset as proximate mechanisms that alert men and women to strategic interference. Moreover, the diversity of upset elicitors discovered here (being condescending, possessive, neglecting, abusive, inconsiderate, moody, and self-centered), point to the limitations of this evolutionary model and the need to develop more comprehensive models of conflict between the sexes.

At a closer look, the following observations and comments have been drawn: First, the highly selective samples of American college students and their generalizability may be limited. There is an uneven distribution of subjects, with 51 men and 56 women.

Second, the reliance on self-report measures, although that has been the methodology of choice in most research examining sexual desires may not yield and objective result. Self-rating method can be bias in the sense that the subjects feelings and prejudice may interfere with the results.

Moreover, the subjects have so many differences. They come from different backgrounds and have differing knowledge and perceptions of the same and opposite sexes of participants. They also differ in dating history and marital status. The ones with longer dating history may have different perceptions and experiences with those of short-term dating. The married ones, divorced, widowed and singles have definitely different experiences and maturity.

In addition, this is a problematic development of upset instrument because the instrument is based on responses from undergraduates only. There is a disparity in the level of maturity compared to the lower and higher levels of actual, real-life individuals and experiences, as well as psychological make-up.

Furthermore, the participants of this research are either single and in a relationship. This could lead to the responses based on the participant’s imaginative capabilities. This could further cause more differences.

Another bias is the partial explanation for males only, such as: Men’s upset and anger about women’s withholding of sex. Women are not necessarily upset and angered by the hypothesized feature of male reproductive strategy involving sexual aggressiveness. According to attachment fertility theory (Miller and Fishkin, 1997) that might argue that unattached participants were in the phase of “promiscuously” seeking potential mates in an attempt to enhance the likelihood of a good mate choice. The unattached female here can take male’s aggression and may be happy with it because of the initial motivation of seeking a potential mate. Female, in this case are unfairly described.

In addition, differences of features of the opposite sex’s reproductive strategy or different reproductive strategy may not interfere with one’s adopted reproductive strategy and thus cause conflict.