No Cover Image

Journal article 2007 views

The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?

Steve Stewart-Williams, Andrew Thomas Orcid Logo

Psychological Inquiry, Volume: 24, Pages: 137 - 168

Swansea University Authors: Steve Stewart-Williams, Andrew Thomas Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

DOI (Published version): 10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899

Abstract

This article looks at the evolution of sex differences in sexuality in human beings, and asks whether evolutionary psychology sometimes exaggerates these differences. According to a common understanding of sexual selection theory, females in most species invest more than males in their offspring and...

Full description

Published in: Psychological Inquiry
Published: 2013
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa14627
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2013-07-23T12:12:33Z
last_indexed 2018-02-09T04:46:06Z
id cronfa14627
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2014-03-04T10:37:30.0007860</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>14627</id><entry>2013-04-22</entry><title>The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>1296cac0a5504263ae725614f97dc0f8</sid><firstname>Steve</firstname><surname>Stewart-Williams</surname><name>Steve Stewart-Williams</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>a43308ae6d7f5b8d5ab0daff5b832a96</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-5251-7923</ORCID><firstname>Andrew</firstname><surname>Thomas</surname><name>Andrew Thomas</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2013-04-22</date><abstract>This article looks at the evolution of sex differences in sexuality in human beings, and asks whether evolutionary psychology sometimes exaggerates these differences. According to a common understanding of sexual selection theory, females in most species invest more than males in their offspring and, as a result, males compete for as many mates as possible, whereas females choose from among the competing males. The males-compete/females-choose (MCFC) model applies to many species, but is misleading when applied to human beings. This is because males in our species commonly contribute to the rearing of the young, which reduces the sex difference in parental investment. Consequently, sex differences in our species are relatively modest. Rather than males competing and female choosing, humans have a system of mutual courtship: Both sexes are choosy about long-term mates and both sexes compete for desirable mates. We call this the mutual mate choice (MMC) model. Although much of the evolutionary psychology literature is consistent with this model, the traditional MCFC model exerts a strong influence on the field, distorting the emerging picture of the evolved sexual psychology of Homo sapiens. Specifically, it has led to the exaggeration of the magnitude of human sex differences, an overemphasis on men&#x2019;s short-term mating inclinations, and a relative neglect of male mate choice and female mate competition. We advocate a stronger focus on the MMC model.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Psychological Inquiry</journal><volume>24</volume><paginationStart>137</paginationStart><paginationEnd>168</paginationEnd><publisher/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Evolutionary Psychology; Human Mating; Mutual Mate Choice; Sex Differences; Sexual Selection; Sexual Dimorphism</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2013</publishedYear><publishedDate>2013-12-31</publishedDate><doi>10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2014-03-04T10:37:30.0007860</lastEdited><Created>2013-04-22T15:54:05.4453654</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Psychology</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Steve</firstname><surname>Stewart-Williams</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Andrew</firstname><surname>Thomas</surname><orcid>0000-0001-5251-7923</orcid><order>2</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2014-03-04T10:37:30.0007860 v2 14627 2013-04-22 The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences? 1296cac0a5504263ae725614f97dc0f8 Steve Stewart-Williams Steve Stewart-Williams true false a43308ae6d7f5b8d5ab0daff5b832a96 0000-0001-5251-7923 Andrew Thomas Andrew Thomas true false 2013-04-22 This article looks at the evolution of sex differences in sexuality in human beings, and asks whether evolutionary psychology sometimes exaggerates these differences. According to a common understanding of sexual selection theory, females in most species invest more than males in their offspring and, as a result, males compete for as many mates as possible, whereas females choose from among the competing males. The males-compete/females-choose (MCFC) model applies to many species, but is misleading when applied to human beings. This is because males in our species commonly contribute to the rearing of the young, which reduces the sex difference in parental investment. Consequently, sex differences in our species are relatively modest. Rather than males competing and female choosing, humans have a system of mutual courtship: Both sexes are choosy about long-term mates and both sexes compete for desirable mates. We call this the mutual mate choice (MMC) model. Although much of the evolutionary psychology literature is consistent with this model, the traditional MCFC model exerts a strong influence on the field, distorting the emerging picture of the evolved sexual psychology of Homo sapiens. Specifically, it has led to the exaggeration of the magnitude of human sex differences, an overemphasis on men’s short-term mating inclinations, and a relative neglect of male mate choice and female mate competition. We advocate a stronger focus on the MMC model. Journal Article Psychological Inquiry 24 137 168 Evolutionary Psychology; Human Mating; Mutual Mate Choice; Sex Differences; Sexual Selection; Sexual Dimorphism 31 12 2013 2013-12-31 10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899 COLLEGE NANME COLLEGE CODE Swansea University 2014-03-04T10:37:30.0007860 2013-04-22T15:54:05.4453654 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Psychology Steve Stewart-Williams 1 Andrew Thomas 0000-0001-5251-7923 2
title The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?
spellingShingle The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?
Steve Stewart-Williams
Andrew Thomas
title_short The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?
title_full The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?
title_fullStr The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?
title_full_unstemmed The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?
title_sort The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate sex differences?
author_id_str_mv 1296cac0a5504263ae725614f97dc0f8
a43308ae6d7f5b8d5ab0daff5b832a96
author_id_fullname_str_mv 1296cac0a5504263ae725614f97dc0f8_***_Steve Stewart-Williams
a43308ae6d7f5b8d5ab0daff5b832a96_***_Andrew Thomas
author Steve Stewart-Williams
Andrew Thomas
author2 Steve Stewart-Williams
Andrew Thomas
format Journal article
container_title Psychological Inquiry
container_volume 24
container_start_page 137
publishDate 2013
institution Swansea University
doi_str_mv 10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str School of Psychology{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Psychology
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description This article looks at the evolution of sex differences in sexuality in human beings, and asks whether evolutionary psychology sometimes exaggerates these differences. According to a common understanding of sexual selection theory, females in most species invest more than males in their offspring and, as a result, males compete for as many mates as possible, whereas females choose from among the competing males. The males-compete/females-choose (MCFC) model applies to many species, but is misleading when applied to human beings. This is because males in our species commonly contribute to the rearing of the young, which reduces the sex difference in parental investment. Consequently, sex differences in our species are relatively modest. Rather than males competing and female choosing, humans have a system of mutual courtship: Both sexes are choosy about long-term mates and both sexes compete for desirable mates. We call this the mutual mate choice (MMC) model. Although much of the evolutionary psychology literature is consistent with this model, the traditional MCFC model exerts a strong influence on the field, distorting the emerging picture of the evolved sexual psychology of Homo sapiens. Specifically, it has led to the exaggeration of the magnitude of human sex differences, an overemphasis on men’s short-term mating inclinations, and a relative neglect of male mate choice and female mate competition. We advocate a stronger focus on the MMC model.
published_date 2013-12-31T03:16:44Z
_version_ 1763750344599273472
score 11.037166

Similar Items