No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A climate of confusion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2017
Abstract
I identify two confusions and omissions in the target article. Confusion arises from failure to distinguish between a genetically transmitted adaptation and a conditional response to the environment, and from the elision of individual and societal adaptations. Despite points of similarity, there is no mention of Rushton's controversial theory of the climatic basis of race differences in violent crime. Sex differences are also ignored.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
References
Campbell, A. (2013) A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (2015) Women's competition and aggression. In: The handbook of evolutionary psychology: Integrations, vol. 2, 2nd edition. ed. Buss, D., pp. 684–703. Wiley.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A. & McCrea, R. R. (2001) Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
81:322–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T. & Campbell, A. (2011) Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin
137:97–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushton, J. P. (1985a) Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Personality and Individual Differences
6:441–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (2000a) Race, evolution and behavior, 2nd special abridged edition. Charles Darwin Research Institute.Google Scholar
Target article
Aggression and violence around the world: A model of CLimate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans (CLASH)
Related commentaries (28)
A climate of confusion
Aggression, predictability of the environment, and self-regulation: Reconciliation with animal research
An alternative interpretation of climate data: Intelligence
Bullying when it's hot? The CLASH model and climatic influences on bullying
CLASH's life history foundations
Climate is not a good candidate to account for variations in aggression and violence across space and time
Culture matters for life history trade-offs
Dimensions of environmental risk are unique theoretical constructs
Does distance from the equator predict self-control? Lessons from the Human Penguin Project
Hell on earth? Equatorial peaks of heat, poverty, and aggression
Inconsistent with the data: Support for the CLASH model depends on the wrong kind of latitude
More than just climate: Income inequality and sex ratio are better predictors of cross-cultural variations in aggression
Postcolonial geography confounds latitudinal trends in observed aggression and violence
Pragmatic prospection emphasizes utility of predicting rather than mere predictability
Reply to Van Lange et al.: Proximate and ultimate distinctions must be made to the CLASH model
Russian data refute the CLASH model
Sociocultural discourse in science: Flawed assumptions and bias in the CLASH model
Stuck in the heat or stuck in the hierarchy? Power relations explain regional variations in violence
The CLASH model in broader life history context
The CLASH model lacks evolutionary and archeological support
The importance of being explicit
The paradoxical effect of climate on time perspective considering resource accumulation
The role of adolescence in geographic variation in violent aggression
The role of climate in human aggression and violence: Towards a broader conception
Using foresight to prioritise the present
Warm coffee, sunny days, and prosocial behavior
Where the psychological adaptations hit the ecological road
Why the CLASH model is an unconvincing evolutionary theory of crime
Author response
The Logic of Climate and Culture: Evolutionary and Psychological Aspects of CLASH