Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:01:43.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Female advantage in threat avoidance manifests in threat reaction but not threat detection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2022

David S. March Open the ORCID record for David S. March [Opens in a new window]  and
Lowell Gaertner Open the ORCID record for Lowell Gaertner [Opens in a new window]
David S. March
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4301, USA [email protected]://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/marchd/march.dp.php
Lowell Gaertner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0900, USA [email protected]://psychology.utk.edu/faculty/gaertner.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Threat avoidance involves both detection of a threatening stimulus and reaction to it. We demonstrate with empirically validated stimuli (that are threatening, nonthreatening-negative, neutral, or positive) that threat detection is more pronounced among males, whereas threat reactivity is more pronounced among females. Why women are less efficient detectors of threat challenges Benenson et al.'s conceptual analysis.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e142
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Blanchette, I. (2006). Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: How specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1484–1504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenthal, T. D., Cuthbert, B. N., Filion, D. L., Hackley, S., Lipp, O. V., & Van Boxtel, A. (2005). Committee report: Guidelines for human startle eyeblink electromyographic studies. Psychophysiology, 42, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010–1022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeDoux, J. E. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron, 73, 653–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2017). In harm's way: On preferential response to threatening stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1519–1529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2018a). On the prioritized processing of threat in a dual implicit process model of evaluation. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2018b). Clarifying the explanatory scope of the Dual Implicit Process model. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 38–43. http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1435622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, D. S., Gaertner, L., & Olson, M. A. (2022). On the automatic nature of threat: Physiological and evaluative reactions to survival-threats outside conscious perception. Affective Science, 3, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00090-6.CrossRefGoogle 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
Robinson, M. E., Gagnon, C. M., Riley, J. L. III, & Price, D. D. (2003). Altering gender role expectations: Effects on pain tolerance, pain thresholds, and pain ratings. The Journal of Pain, 4, 284–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez-Meca, J., Chacón-Moscoso, S., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8, 448–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, Y. J., Pituch, K. A., & Rochlen, A. B. (2006). Men's restrictive emotionality: An investigation of associations with other emotion-related constructs, anxiety, and underlying dimensions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar