Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:54:58.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond individual sex differences: “Staying alive theory” as an adaptive complex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2022

John Archer Open the ORCID record for John Archer [Opens in a new window]
John Archer*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Computer Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK jarcher@uclan.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extended staying alive theory (SAT) raises the issue of the extent to which its various attributes are linked or whether they provide alternative means to the same adaptive ends. Theories such as SAT that consider an array of sex differences may benefit from the application of the multivariate D statistic, rather than using a series of d values, as is common at present.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e129
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, J. (2019). The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences. Biological Reviews, 94, 1381–1415.Google ScholarPubMed
Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intra-sexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 203–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1082–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Aldine de Gruyter.Google ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. (1871/1901). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M. (2009). On the real magnitude of psychological sex differences. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 264–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012). The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, A. H. (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Revelle, W. (in press). Understanding the magnitude of psychological differences between women and men requires seeing the forest and the trees. Perspectives in Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Garai, J. D., & Scheinfeld, A. (1968). Sex differences in mental and behavioral traits. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77, 169–299.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lippa, R. A. (2001). On deconstructing and reconstructing masculinity–femininity. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 168–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessments of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 276, 575–584.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2016). Bargaining power and adolescent aggression: The role of fighting ability, coalitional strength, and mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of Man (pp. 136–179). Aldine.Google Scholar
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10–20, and Suppl. S8–S10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed