Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:20:49.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ultimate and proximate influences on human sex differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2009

Drew H. Bailey ,
Jonathan K. Oxford  and
David C. Geary
Drew H. Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. [email protected]@[email protected]://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/
Jonathan K. Oxford
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. [email protected]@[email protected]://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/
David C. Geary
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. [email protected]@[email protected]://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Archer that human sex differences in aggression are well explained by sexual selection, but note that “social learning” explanations of human behaviors are not logically mutually exclusive from “evolutionary” explanations and therefore should not be framed as such. We discuss why this type of framing hinders the development of both social learning and evolutionary theories of human behavior.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 3-4 , August 2009 , pp. 266 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Berenbaum, S. A. & Hines, M. (1992) Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy preferences. Psychological Science 3:203–206.Google Scholar
Colapinto, J. (2001) As nature made him: The boy who was raised as a girl. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871/1901) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Murray. Available online at: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_08.html.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (1998) Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C., Byrd-Craven, J., Hoard, M. K., Vigil, J. & Numtee, C. (2003) Evolution and development of boys' social behavior. Developmental Review 23:444–70.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005) The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60:581–92.Google Scholar
Irons, W. (1979) Cultural and biological success. In:Natural selection and social behavior, ed. Chagnon, N. A. & Irons, W., pp. 257–72. Duxbury.Google Scholar
Öhman, A. & Mineka, S. (2001) Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review 108:483–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiner, W. G. & Gearhart, J. P. (2004) Disconcordant sexual identity in some genetic males with cloacal extrophy assigned to female sex at birth. The New England Journal of Medicine 350:333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisner, T. S. & Wilson-Mitchell, J. E. (1990) Nonconventional family life-styles and sex typing in six-year-olds. Child Development 61:1915–33.CrossRefGoogle 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 128:699–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed