No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Only as a last resort: Sociocultural differences between women and men explain women's heightened reaction to threat, not evolutionary principles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 July 2022
Abstract
The target article proposed that women display greater self-protectiveness than men to major physical and social threats because such self-protective responses have higher fitness value for women than men. Rather than having evolutionary roots, we suggest the various physiological, behavioral, and emotional responses to social and physical threats exhibited more by women than men are instead rooted in sociocultural forces.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Barrett, L. F., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Eyssell, K. M. (1998). Are women the “more emotional” sex?: Evidence from emotional experiences in social context. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. In Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M. & Barrett, L. F. (Eds.), The handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 395–408). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillingim, R. B., King, C. D., Ribeiro-Dasilva, M. C., Rahim-Williams, B., & Riley, J. L. III (2009). Sex, gender, and pain: A review of recent clinical and experimental findings. The Journal of Pain, 10(5), 447–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalbfleisch, P.J., & Herold, A. L. (2006). Sex, power, and communication. In Dindia, K. & Canary, O. J. (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 299–313). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2003). The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 305–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, C. P., & Anderson, E. R. (2009). Brave men and timid women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 496–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2001). Gender differences in depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Shields, S. A. (1998). The gender heuristic and the database: Factors affecting the perception of gender-related differences in the experience and display of emotions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, S. D., Kersh, B. C., Thorn, B. E., Rich, M. A., & Ward, L. C. (2002). Psychosocial mediators of sex differences in pain responsivity. The Journal of Pain, 3(1), 58–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verma, R., Balhara, Y. P. S., & Gupta, C. S. (2011). Gender differences in stress response: Role of developmental and biological determinants. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 20(1), 4–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
Self-protection as an adaptive female strategy
Related commentaries (22)
An expanded “staying alive” theory (SAT) underplays complexity in Homo sapiens
Beyond individual sex differences: “Staying alive theory” as an adaptive complex
Biological sex, by-products, and other continuous variables
Female advantage in threat avoidance manifests in threat reaction but not threat detection
Harm or protection? Two-sided consequences of females' susceptible responses to multiple threats
Only as a last resort: Sociocultural differences between women and men explain women's heightened reaction to threat, not evolutionary principles
Pathological complexity and the evolution of sex differences
Psychological and behavioral implications of self-protection and self-enhancement
Sex differences are insufficient evidence of ecological adaptations in human females
Sex differences in longevity are relative, not independent
Sex-dependent selection, ageing, and implications for “staying alive”
Societies also prioritize female survival
Somatic maintenance/reproduction tradeoffs and human evolution
Staying alive enhances both women's and men's fitness
Staying alive includes adaptations for catalyzing cooperation
The pregnancy compensation hypothesis, not the staying alive theory, accounts for disparate autoimmune functioning of women around the world
The “staying alive” theory reinforces stereotypes and shows women's lower quality of life
Toward a more domain-specific conceptualization of female traits: A commentary on Benenson et al. (2022)
Women amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Self-protection through the behavioral immune system
Women need to stay alive and protect reproductive choice
Women take risks to help others to stay alive
“Staying alive” in the context of intimate partner abuse
Author response
Females undergo selection too