No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The wolf will live with the lamb
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2017
Abstract
Maestripieri et al. pit evolutionary psychology against social psychological and economic perspectives in a winner-take-all empirical battle. In doing so, they risk positioning evolutionary psychology as an antagonistic subdisciplinary enterprise. We worry that such a framing may exacerbate tensions between “competing” scientific perspectives and limit evolutionary psychology's potential to serve as a unifying core theory.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
References
Buss, D. M. (1995) Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry
6:1–30.Google Scholar
Inbar, Y. & Lammers, J. (2012) Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science
7:496–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G. & West, S. G. (1995) Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
68:427–40.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (2000) The proper study of social psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly
63:3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, R. & Leary, M. R. (2001) Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin
127:187–208.Google Scholar
Park, J. H. (2007) Persistent misunderstandings of inclusive fitness and kin selection: Their ubiquitous appearance in social psychology textbooks. Evolutionary Psychology
5:860–73.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2009) Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
106(35):15073–78.Google Scholar
Shook, N. J., Terrizzi, J. A., Clay, R. & Oosterhoff, B. (2015) In defense of pathogen disgust and disease avoidance: A response to Tybur et al. (2015). Evolution and Human Behavior
36:498–502.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1992) The psychological foundations of culture. In: The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, ed. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J., pp. 19–136. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Inbar, Y., Güler, E. & Molho, C. (2015a) Is the relationship between pathogen avoidance and ideological conservatism explained by sexual strategies?
Evolution and Human Behavior
36:489–97.Google Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Inbar, Y., Güler, E. & Molho, C. (2015b) Pathogen disgust requires no defense: A response to Shook, Terrizzi, Clay, & Oosterhoff (2015). Evolution and Human Behavior
36:502–504.Google Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Miller, G. F. & Gangestad, S. W. (2007) Testing the controversy: An empirical investigation of adaptationists' attitudes toward politics and science. Human Nature
18:313–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology
Related commentaries (25)
An assessment of the mating motive explanation of the beauty premium in market-based settings
Attention and memory benefits for physical attractiveness may mediate prosocial biases
Attentional and affective biases for attractive females emerge early in development
Attractiveness bias: A cognitive explanation
Attractiveness biases are the tip of the iceberg in biological markets
Context matters for attractiveness bias
Evolutionary explanations for financial and prosocial biases: Beyond mating motivation
Explanations for attractiveness-related positive biases in an evolutionary perspective of life history theory
How should we tackle financial and prosocial biases against unattractive people?
Is there an alternative explanation to the evolutionary account for financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive individuals?
It is not all about mating: Attractiveness predicts partner value across multiple relationship domains
Just My Imagination: Beauty premium and the evolved mental model
Mating motives are neither necessary nor sufficient to create the beauty premium
Omitted evidence undermines sexual motives explanation for attractiveness bias
Oxytocin drives prosocial biases in favor of attractive people
Prosocial behavior as sexual signaling
Strong but flexible: How fundamental social motives support but sometimes also thwart favorable attractiveness biases
The biasing effects of appearances go beyond physical attractiveness and mating motives
The out-of-my-league effect
The type of behavior and the role of relationship length in mate choice for prosociality among physically attractive individuals
The wolf will live with the lamb
There is more: Intrasexual competitiveness, physical dominance, and intrasexual collaboration
Tinbergen's “four questions” provides a formal framework for a more complete understanding of prosocial biases in favour of attractive people
Understanding the physical attractiveness literature: Qualitative reviews versus meta-analysis
What does evolutionary theory add to stereotype theory in the explanation of attractiveness bias?
Author response
Moving forward with interdisciplinary research on attractiveness-related biases