Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:09:16.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - Are Humans Peacocks or Robins?

from Part VII - Sexual Selection and Human Sex Differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

By
Steve Stewart-Williams
Edited by
Lance Workman ,
Will Reader  and
Jerome H. Barkow
Lance Workman
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia
Get access

Summary

Sociobiological approaches have made great inroads into psychological science over the last few decades. This has not come without a fight. One of the main fronts on which the battle has been fought is the origins of human sex differences. Evolutionary psychologists have made a strong case that many basic sex differences in our species have an evolutionary origin; the case is now so strong, in fact, that it seems unreasonable to deny a significant evolutionary contribution. A question mark remains, however, over the relative magnitude of the evolved differences. Are we highly dimorphic, polygynous animals like peacocks? Or are we relatively monomorphic, pair-bonding animals like robins? In this chapter, I argue that we are closer to the latter than the former – a fact that makes us somewhat anomalous among the animals. In many species, the males alone compete for mates and the females alone choose from among the males on offer.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior , pp. 342 - 352
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baschnagel, J. S., & Edlund, J. E. (2016). Affective modification of the startle eyeblink response during sexual and emotional infidelity scripts. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 114–122.Google Scholar
Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Jealousy: Evidence of strong sex differences using both forced choice and continuous measure paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 212–216.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. L. (1986). Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 30, 654–676.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. (2012). Means, variances, and ranges in reproductive success: Comparative evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 309–317.Google Scholar
Brown, J., Laland, K. N., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Bateman’s principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2000). The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy Is as Necessary as Love and Sex. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2003). Sexual strategies: A journey into controversy. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 219–226.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 16, 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7, 359–363.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (2002). A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, J. (2008). Evolution and Human Behaviour: Darwinian Perspectives on Human Nature, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Vincent, A. C. J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 58–60.Google Scholar
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11–27.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Souza, A. A. L., Verderane, M. P., Taira, J. T., & Otta, E. (2006). Emotional and sexual jealousy as a function of sex and sexual orientation in a Brazilian sample. Psychological Reports, 98, 529–535.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M. (2013). Multivariate misgivings: Is D a valid measure of group and sex differences? Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 1067–1076.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012). The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS ONE, 7, e29265.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. D., & Minnegal, M. (1993). Are Kubo hunters “show-offs”? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 53–70.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226–235.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the paternal investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furze, B., Savy, P., Brym, R. J., & Lie, J., eds. (2011). Sociology in Today’s World, 2nd ed. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In Simpson, J. A. & Kenrick, D. T., eds., Evolutionary Social Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 169–196.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C., Rumsey, M., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Hoard, M. K. (1995). Sexual jealousy as a facultative trait: Evidence from the pattern of sex differences in adults from China and the United States. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 355–383.Google Scholar
Geissmann, T. (1993). Evolution of communication in gibbons (Hylobatidae). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Zürich University.Google Scholar
Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Feranil, A. B., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 16194–16199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottschall, J., Martin, J., Quish, H., & Rea, J. (2004). Sex differences in mate choice criteria are reflected in folktales from around the world and in historical European literature. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 102–112.Google Scholar
Gould, R. G. (2000). How many children could Moulay Ismail have had? Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 295–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, P. B., & Anderson, K. G. (2010). Fatherhood: Evolution and Human Paternal Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, S. C., Owens, I. P. F., & Thuman, K. A. (2002). Extra pair paternity in birds: A review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Molecular Ecology, 11, 2195–2212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harman, S. M., Metter, E. J., Tobin, J. D., Pearson, J., & Blackman, M. R. (2001). Longitudinal effects of aging on serum total and free testosterone levels in healthy men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 86, 724–731.Google Scholar
Harris, C. R. (2013). Humans, deer, and sea dragons: How evolutionary psychology has misconstrued human sex differences. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 195–201.Google Scholar
Hawkes, K. (1991). Showing off: Tests of an hypothesis about men’s foraging goals. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Blurton Jones, N. (1989). Hardworking Hadza grandmothers. In Standen, V. & Foley, R., eds., Comparative Socioecology. London: Basil Blackwell, pp. 341–266.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. J. A., & Anglin, J. M. (2003). Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 303–364.Google Scholar
Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (1996). Demographic/Life History of Ache Foragers. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origin of Mutual Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Huck, M., Fernandez-Duque, E., Babb, P., & Schurr, T. (2014). Correlates of genetic monogamy in socially monogamous mammals: Insights from Azara’s owl monkeys. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281, 20140195.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jankowiak, W., & Fisher, E. (1992). Cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31, 149–156.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2003). Can evolutionary psychology explain reproductive behavior in the contemporary United States? Sociological Quarterly, 44, 291–302.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. (1994). Evolutionary and wealth flow theories of fertility: Empirical tests and new models. Population and Development Review, 20, 753–791.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210–217.Google Scholar
Kong, A., Frigge, M. L., Masson, G., et al. (2012). Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father’s age to disease risk. Nature, 488, 471–475.Google Scholar
Kuhle, B. X. (2011). Did you have sex with him? Do you love her? An in vivo test of sex differences in jealous interrogations. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1044–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labuda, D., Lefebvre, J.-F., Nadeau, P., & Roy-Gagnon, M.-H. (2010). Female-to-male breeding ratio in modern humans: An analysis based on historical recombinations. American Journal of Human Genetics, 86, 353–363.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.Google Scholar
Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193–208.Google Scholar
Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651.Google Scholar
Lishner, D. A., Nguyen, S., Stocks, E. L., & Zillmer, E. J. (2008). Are sexual and emotional infidelity equally upsetting to men and women? Making sense of forced-choice responses. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 667–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioural Processes, 51, 45–61.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. W. (2003). A critical period for provisioning by Hadza men: Implications for pair bonding. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter–gatherers. Human Nature, 15, 365–376.Google Scholar
Martin, R. D. (1990). Primate Origins and Evolution: A Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCaughey, M. (2007). The Caveman Mystique: Pop Darwinism and the Debates over Sex, Violence, and Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2000). The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001). Human mate choice decisions. In Noe, R., Hammerstein, P., & van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M., eds., Economic Models of Human and Animal Behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–202.Google Scholar
Pérusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267–322.Google Scholar
Pietrzak, R., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002). Sex differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-choice, continuous rating-scale, and physiological responses on the same subjects. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 83–95.Google Scholar
Reichard, U. H. (2003). Monogamy: Past and present. In Reichard, U. H. & Boesch, C., eds., Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., et al. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 595–614.Google Scholar
Scelza, B. A. (2014). Jealousy in a small-scale, natural fertility population: The roles of paternity, investment and love in jealous response. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., & 118 Members of the International Sexuality Description Project (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.Google Scholar
Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 456–466.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080.Google Scholar
Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). The Ape That Understood the Universe: How the Mind and Culture Evolve. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart-Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2017). Sexual history and present attractiveness: People want a mate with a bit of a past, but not too much. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1097–1105.Google Scholar
Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013a). The ape that kicked the hornet’s nest: Response to commentaries on “The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock.” Psychological Inquiry, 24, 248–271.Google Scholar
Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013b). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24, 137–168.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B., ed., Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871–1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press, pp. 136–179.Google Scholar
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×