Sex differences in the design features of socially contingent mating adaptations

被引:5
作者
Buss, DM [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas, Dept Psychol, Austin, TX 78712 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1017/S0140525X05260053
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Schmitt's study provides strong support for sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt 1993) - that men and women both have evolved a complex menu of mating strategies, selectively deployed depending on personal, social, and ecological contexts. It also simultaneously refutes social structural theories founded on the core premise that women and men are sexually monomorphic in their psychology of human mating. Further progress depends on identifying evolved psychological design features sensitive to the costs and benefits of pursuing each strategy from the menu, which vary across mating milieus. These design features, like many well-documented mating adaptations, are likely to be highly sex-differentiated.
引用
收藏
页码:278 / +
页数:10
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, SEX POWER CONFLICT E
[2]  
Buss D.M., 2003, EVOLUTION DESIRE STR
[3]   SEXUAL STRATEGIES THEORY - AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ON HUMAN MATING [J].
BUSS, DM ;
SCHMITT, DP .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1993, 100 (02) :204-232
[4]   PREFERENCES IN HUMAN MATE SELECTION [J].
BUSS, DM ;
BARNES, M .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1986, 50 (03) :559-570
[5]  
BUSS DM, 1996, SOCIAL PSYCHOL HDB B
[6]   The origins of sex differences in human behavior -: Evolved dispositions versus social roles [J].
Eagly, AH ;
Wood, W .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 1999, 54 (06) :408-423
[7]   The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry [J].
Gangestad, SW ;
Thornhill, R .
EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 1997, 18 (02) :69-88
[8]   Women's sexual strategies: the hidden dimension of extra-pair mating [J].
Greiling, H ;
Buss, DM .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2000, 28 (05) :929-963
[9]   Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading [J].
Haselton, MG ;
Buss, DM .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 78 (01) :81-91