Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14616660010024599
J. Mcknight, J. P. Malcolm
Is male homosexuality maternally linked? In 1993 Hamer et al. noted a preponderance of male relatives in the maternal lines of gay men relative to heterosexual controls, and then reported a possible X-chromosome linkage to male homosexuality. This paper is the first notice of an ongoing investigation measuring whether this is a maternal inheritance effect or a general fecundity effect through the female line. The test of Hamer's proposition is, first, in finding a difference in the numbers of gay uncles and male cousins between maternal and paternal parental lines; then, in finding a difference in the numbers of gay male cousins between the male and female maternal lines; and last, in finding an increased reproductive rate for maternal line relatives, particularly female ones. A genetic pedigree was taken of a matched sample of 60 straight and 60 homosexual men drawn from the gay population of Sydney, Australia, and the first two tests were not supported and only partial support was found for the third pr...
{"title":"Is male homosexuality maternally linked","authors":"J. Mcknight, J. P. Malcolm","doi":"10.1080/14616660010024599","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660010024599","url":null,"abstract":"Is male homosexuality maternally linked? In 1993 Hamer et al. noted a preponderance of male relatives in the maternal lines of gay men relative to heterosexual controls, and then reported a possible X-chromosome linkage to male homosexuality. This paper is the first notice of an ongoing investigation measuring whether this is a maternal inheritance effect or a general fecundity effect through the female line. The test of Hamer's proposition is, first, in finding a difference in the numbers of gay uncles and male cousins between maternal and paternal parental lines; then, in finding a difference in the numbers of gay male cousins between the male and female maternal lines; and last, in finding an increased reproductive rate for maternal line relatives, particularly female ones. A genetic pedigree was taken of a matched sample of 60 straight and 60 homosexual men drawn from the gay population of Sydney, Australia, and the first two tests were not supported and only partial support was found for the third pr...","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124379813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14616660110049564
A. Fischer, P. R. Mosquera
This paper critically evaluates the evolutionary proposition that men's greater aggressiveness is the result of male intra-sexual competition. For this purpose we review and discuss experimental psychological and survey studies, as well as sociological and cultural anthropological work on gender differences in anger and aggression. The reviewed studies do not support the idea that men's concern for women, reflected in the salience of intra-sexual competition, is the major cause for male's supremacy in violence. On the contrary, we argue that the fear of losing status and respect in the eyes of fellow men is the major concern that evokes male anger and aggression. The implications of our argument for the evolutionary theory are discussed.
{"title":"What concerns men? Women or other men?: A critical appraisal of the evolutionary theory of sex differences in aggression","authors":"A. Fischer, P. R. Mosquera","doi":"10.1080/14616660110049564","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660110049564","url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically evaluates the evolutionary proposition that men's greater aggressiveness is the result of male intra-sexual competition. For this purpose we review and discuss experimental psychological and survey studies, as well as sociological and cultural anthropological work on gender differences in anger and aggression. The reviewed studies do not support the idea that men's concern for women, reflected in the salience of intra-sexual competition, is the major cause for male's supremacy in violence. On the contrary, we argue that the fear of losing status and respect in the eyes of fellow men is the major concern that evokes male anger and aggression. The implications of our argument for the evolutionary theory are discussed.","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127921808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14616660050082906
L. Owens, R. Shute, P. Slee
This paper reports on a qualitative investigation of explanations for teenage girls' indirect aggression (e.g., spreading false rumours, excluding peers from the group) which is part of a larger study on the nature of teenage girls' indirect aggression. Focus groups were conducted with fifty-four 15-16-year-old girls. These focus group data were supplemented with interviews with six pairs of girls and a focus group discussion with a pilot group of eight 16-year-olds and separate individual interviews with ten key teachers. The overall aim of this part of the study was to explore why girls are indirectly aggressive to their peers. The key explanations proposed by the girls and their teachers were a desire to create excitement in girls' lives together with a range of friendship and group processes, centred around having close intimate relationships and belonging to the peer group. This study enriches our understanding of girls' indirect aggression and adds to earlier research conducted mainly using quantita...
{"title":"'I'm in and you're out . . . '","authors":"L. Owens, R. Shute, P. Slee","doi":"10.1080/14616660050082906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660050082906","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reports on a qualitative investigation of explanations for teenage girls' indirect aggression (e.g., spreading false rumours, excluding peers from the group) which is part of a larger study on the nature of teenage girls' indirect aggression. Focus groups were conducted with fifty-four 15-16-year-old girls. These focus group data were supplemented with interviews with six pairs of girls and a focus group discussion with a pilot group of eight 16-year-olds and separate individual interviews with ten key teachers. The overall aim of this part of the study was to explore why girls are indirectly aggressive to their peers. The key explanations proposed by the girls and their teachers were a desire to create excitement in girls' lives together with a range of friendship and group processes, centred around having close intimate relationships and belonging to the peer group. This study enriches our understanding of girls' indirect aggression and adds to earlier research conducted mainly using quantita...","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132932314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/1461666031000063665
L. Gannon
Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new paradigm and an interdisciplinary one that has engendered considerable debate, conflict and controversy among scholars of various disciplines. The purpose of this paper is to examine the sources of this conflict and to articulate the contested issues. Emerging from methodological and inferential differences among the relevant disciplines is the question of whether or not falsifiability need be a prerequisite for theories to be considered ‘scientific.’ Although universal consensus may substitute for falsifiability, the assumptions underlying the evolutionary psychology paradigm are neither falsifiable nor do they command universal consensus. Assumptions addressed in this paper include the nature of natural selection, the unit of selection, sources of variation, and the structure of the evolved human brain. Furthermore, the paradigm suffers from inherent contradictions: (a) the claim by evolutionary psychologists that knowledge of ultimate causes is necessary to a...
{"title":"A critique of evolutionary psychology","authors":"L. Gannon","doi":"10.1080/1461666031000063665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1461666031000063665","url":null,"abstract":"Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new paradigm and an interdisciplinary one that has engendered considerable debate, conflict and controversy among scholars of various disciplines. The purpose of this paper is to examine the sources of this conflict and to articulate the contested issues. Emerging from methodological and inferential differences among the relevant disciplines is the question of whether or not falsifiability need be a prerequisite for theories to be considered ‘scientific.’ Although universal consensus may substitute for falsifiability, the assumptions underlying the evolutionary psychology paradigm are neither falsifiable nor do they command universal consensus. Assumptions addressed in this paper include the nature of natural selection, the unit of selection, sources of variation, and the structure of the evolved human brain. Furthermore, the paradigm suffers from inherent contradictions: (a) the claim by evolutionary psychologists that knowledge of ultimate causes is necessary to a...","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125627794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/1461666031000063674
D. Schmitt
Gannon (this issue) has critiqued several features of evolutionary psychology. Gannon concluded that because the assumptions of evolutionary psychology are not falsifiable - and in her view many of them are wrong - evolutionary psychology should not be considered a truly scientific enterprise. In this article, several reasons are presented for why evolutionary psychology should be considered a science. For one, the falsifiability criterion invoked by Gannon was incorrectly applied to the paradigmatic level of science. Instead, falsifiability should be used to evaluate low-level empirical predictions, not high-level paradigms. Moreover, a mounting body of evidence supports the utility of using evolutionary theories to generate hypotheses and their accompanying falsifiable predictions concerning much of human behavior. Finally, rationale is provided for why evolutionary psychology may be considered a more valuable science than competing alternatives. For example, the paradigm of evolutionary psychology cont...
{"title":"How shall I compare thee","authors":"D. Schmitt","doi":"10.1080/1461666031000063674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1461666031000063674","url":null,"abstract":"Gannon (this issue) has critiqued several features of evolutionary psychology. Gannon concluded that because the assumptions of evolutionary psychology are not falsifiable - and in her view many of them are wrong - evolutionary psychology should not be considered a truly scientific enterprise. In this article, several reasons are presented for why evolutionary psychology should be considered a science. For one, the falsifiability criterion invoked by Gannon was incorrectly applied to the paradigmatic level of science. Instead, falsifiability should be used to evaluate low-level empirical predictions, not high-level paradigms. Moreover, a mounting body of evidence supports the utility of using evolutionary theories to generate hypotheses and their accompanying falsifiable predictions concerning much of human behavior. Finally, rationale is provided for why evolutionary psychology may be considered a more valuable science than competing alternatives. For example, the paradigm of evolutionary psychology cont...","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"215 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114675820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/1461666021000013733
R. Hopcroft
In this paper, I use evolutionary psychology to develop a new theory of sex discrimination. This theory suggests that a cognitive bias toward low task-related self-esteem in young women when comparing themselves to men, and for high task-related self-esteem in men when comparing themselves to young women, may have evolved as it was in the reproductive interests of both males and females. Low task-related selfesteem vis-a-vis males may have been adaptive for young females in the evolutionary environment because it advertised both youth and future controllability , features highly attractive to prospective mates. High task-related self-esteem vis-a-vis young females may have been adaptive for males because it advertised capabilities as providers and protectors, also features attractive to mates. Both biases are predicted to end for females beyond the reproductive years. Predictions from this theory are tested and supported with data from twenty-nine countries, including the US.
{"title":"The evolution of sex discrimination","authors":"R. Hopcroft","doi":"10.1080/1461666021000013733","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1461666021000013733","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I use evolutionary psychology to develop a new theory of sex discrimination. This theory suggests that a cognitive bias toward low task-related self-esteem in young women when comparing themselves to men, and for high task-related self-esteem in men when comparing themselves to young women, may have evolved as it was in the reproductive interests of both males and females. Low task-related selfesteem vis-a-vis males may have been adaptive for young females in the evolutionary environment because it advertised both youth and future controllability , features highly attractive to prospective mates. High task-related self-esteem vis-a-vis young females may have been adaptive for males because it advertised capabilities as providers and protectors, also features attractive to mates. Both biases are predicted to end for females beyond the reproductive years. Predictions from this theory are tested and supported with data from twenty-nine countries, including the US.","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126418465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14616660050200904
W. Mau, R. Lynn
Gender differences in maths, reading, science and the amount of homework done out of school were obtained for tenth and twelfth graders from the American National Educational Longitudinal Study. Males obtained significantly higher mean scores in maths and science, and females obtained significantly higher mean scores in reading and amount of homework. There were significant correlations between test scores and amount of homework, suggesting that amount of homework contributes to test scores.
{"title":"Gender differences in homework and test scores in Mathematics, Reading and Science at tenth and twelfth grade","authors":"W. Mau, R. Lynn","doi":"10.1080/14616660050200904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660050200904","url":null,"abstract":"Gender differences in maths, reading, science and the amount of homework done out of school were obtained for tenth and twelfth graders from the American National Educational Longitudinal Study. Males obtained significantly higher mean scores in maths and science, and females obtained significantly higher mean scores in reading and amount of homework. There were significant correlations between test scores and amount of homework, suggesting that amount of homework contributes to test scores.","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"78 5 Pt 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133636092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14616660110119331
D. Schmitt, T. Shackelford, D. Buss
According to Sexual Strategies Theory (D.M. Buss and D.P.Schmitt 1993), both men and women possess psychological adaptations for short-term mating. However, men may possess three adaptations that make it seem as though they are generally more 'oriented' toward short-term mating than women: (1) Men possess greater desire for short-term sexual relationships than women; (2) Men prefer larger numbers of sexual partners over time than women; and (3) Men require less time before consenting to sex than women. We review a wide body of psychological theory and evidence that corroborates the presence of these adaptations in men's short-term sexual psychology. We also correct some recurring misinterpretations of Sexual Strategies Theory, such as the mistaken notion that women are designed solely for long-term mating. Finally, we document how the observed sex differences in short-term mating complement some feminist theories and refute competing evolutionary theories of human sexuality.
{"title":"Are men really more 'oriented' toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research","authors":"D. Schmitt, T. Shackelford, D. Buss","doi":"10.1080/14616660110119331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660110119331","url":null,"abstract":"According to Sexual Strategies Theory (D.M. Buss and D.P.Schmitt 1993), both men and women possess psychological adaptations for short-term mating. However, men may possess three adaptations that make it seem as though they are generally more 'oriented' toward short-term mating than women: (1) Men possess greater desire for short-term sexual relationships than women; (2) Men prefer larger numbers of sexual partners over time than women; and (3) Men require less time before consenting to sex than women. We review a wide body of psychological theory and evidence that corroborates the presence of these adaptations in men's short-term sexual psychology. We also correct some recurring misinterpretations of Sexual Strategies Theory, such as the mistaken notion that women are designed solely for long-term mating. Finally, we document how the observed sex differences in short-term mating complement some feminist theories and refute competing evolutionary theories of human sexuality.","PeriodicalId":280659,"journal":{"name":"Psychology, Evolution & Gender","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122175656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：