Article Description
Study shows why protein mutations lead to familial form of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) at the University of California, San Diego, have shown for the first time why protein mutations lead to the familial form of Parkinson’s disease. The study, available online in prepublication in ACS Chemical Neuroscience and partially funded by the National Institutes of Health, focuses specifically on alpha-synuclein [...]The post Study shows why protein mutations lead to familial form of Parkinson’s disease appeared first on PsyPost.
Antisocial and non-antisocial siblings share difficulty recognizing emotions Teenagers with brothers and sisters who exhibit severe antisocial behaviour share a similar impairment with their siblings in recognising emotions, according to a new study from the University of Southampton. The findings suggest that difficulties in recognising emotions could be a factor that increases a child’s risk of developing conduct disorder – a condition characterised [...]The post Antisocial and non-antisocial siblings share difficulty recognizing emotions appeared first on PsyPost.
Iodine deficiency in pregnant women impairs embryonic brain development Pregnant women in Austria commonly suffer from an iodine deficiency. This may have a negative impact on the development of their unborn child’s brain. These are the key findings of a joint study by the Endocrinology and Metabolism Unit at the University Department of Internal Medicine III together with the University Department of Gynaecology at [...]The post Iodine deficiency in pregnant women impairs embryonic brain development appeared first on PsyPost.
Video-based therapy might benefit babies at risk of autism Video-based therapy for families with babies at risk of autism improves infants’ engagement, attention and social behavior, and might reduce the likelihood of such children developing autism, according to new research published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal. “Our findings indicate that using video feedback-based therapy to help parents understand and respond to their infant’s individual [...]The post Video-based therapy might benefit babies at risk of autism appeared first on PsyPost.
Men and women process emotions differently, large-scale behavioral and fMRI study finds Women rate emotional images as more emotionally stimulating than men do and are more likely to remember them. However, there are no gender-related differences in emotional appraisal as far as neutral images are concerned. These were the findings of a large-scale study by a research team at the University of Basel that focused on determining [...]The post Men and women process emotions differently, large-scale behavioral and fMRI study finds appeared first on PsyPost.
Stalking versus cyberstalking: Effects on victims and their responses compared The devastating effects of stalking and cyberstalking – harassing or threatening communication via the Internet – are explored in a new study in the journal Justice Quarterly. Using data from the 2006 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS), Matt R. Nobles from Sam Houston State University in Texas and his colleagues explore how several aspects of stalking and cyberstalking [...]The post Stalking versus cyberstalking: Effects on victims and their responses compared appeared first on PsyPost.
Biblical literalism is at odds with completing college, study finds Researchers have long studied and documented the influence religion has on social groups; however, few have examined the role it plays in education. LSU Sociology Professor Samuel Stroope recently penned a research article that examines the relationship between religion and educational attainment in the U.S. The article, titled, “Social Context and College Completion in the [...]The post Biblical literalism is at odds with completing college, study finds appeared first on PsyPost.
What is sexual fluidity? Research suggests that sexual orientations are not set in stone Sexual preferences are not set in stone and can change over time, often depending on the immediate situation the individual is in. This has been described as sexual fluidity. For example, if someone identifies as heterosexual but then finds themselves in an environment with only people of the same gender, they might feel increased sexual [...]The post What is sexual fluidity? Research suggests that sexual orientations are not set in stone appeared first on PsyPost.
“Last Call” As a sex crimes prosecutor, I often see the disastrous results of poor relational choices.  Ruthless manipulators befriend lonely women in order to exploit their finances.  Sexual predators hone in on emotionally vulnerable underage girls with the goal of exploiting their desire for love and affection—even with an age inappropriate suitor who is two decades older.  How does this happen?  Research shows that consistent with folk wisdom, reckless partner selection occurs more frequently when someone is driven not by discernment, but by desperation.      Relationship Shopping Single people desperately searching for relational partners are like hungry grocery shoppers.  Consequently, they face the same dangers. These include exercising bad judgment in vetting available selections, and focusing on what they believe will make them feel good the fastest instead of considering the full range of selections.  Unwilling to take the time to consider important details such as nutritional value, consumer reviews, or time on the market, hungry shoppers will impulse buy their way into bad choices.   Aware of the appetite of the hungry shopper for low hanging fruit, grocery stores stock the cash register line with a tantalizing array of eye candy ranging from tabloid magazines, soda, and sweets.  People who are relationship shopping when they are desperate are similarly vulnerable to grabbing an easy quick fix—which often peaks then fizzles like a sugar rush, resulting in yet another short-term relationship.  Although such ill-advised pairings are often appropriately viewed as bad choices in retrospect, in the moment, instant gratification rules the day.   The Disappearing Box of Chocolates Some single people looking to become involved romantically are willing to accept the luck of the draw—a game of chance that often characterizes professional relationships.  After I charge a case, discovering the identity of opposing counsel is like Forest Gump´s description of life being “like a box of chocolates.  You never know what you´re gonna get.” I have had opposing counsel turn out to be everyone from a grade school playmate to my high school prom date.   Random selection should not, however, characterize the selection of a relational partner.  Yet sometimes it does.  People who are desperate will grab any piece of chocolate in the box.  Or even worse, they will take whatever is left.  The Age-Old Standard of Relational Shopping: The Bar  In many situations, choice restrictions increase as selections decrease.  You may have experienced this when eyeing the picked-over box of See´s candy your co-worker left in the break room where all the good pieces are gone, as well when confronted with the online tease designed to prompt you to book your hotel immediately, claiming to have “only one room left at this price,” while also alerting you to the number of people who are also looking at it.   Impulsive shopping when you are hungry in the relational field often takes place in one of the tried and true meeting venues that is still in full swing offline—the bar.   These hot spots for public gatherings often function as venues of last resort for individuals who are desperate to partner up.  Unfortunately, the combination of desperation and intoxication can prompt regrettable decisions leading to unwise sexual encounters and buyers remorse.  How does this happen? As the evening wears on, one of the dynamics in play amidst the emotional, hormone, and alcohol fueled buzz of socializing is the perception that time is running out.  Consequently, while the (hopefully sober) bartender, happily married and “off the market” notices that the attractiveness of many of the bar patrons begins to decline as the evening wears on, patrons looking to partner up may have the opposite perception.  In fact, for these patrons, as closing time approaches, romantic prospects actually become better looking—a phenomenon that demonstrates a situationally generated lack of selectivity.1    Unfortunately, this willingness to select from a progressively dwindling number of choices (in order to hopefully escape with one´s selection before the brutally unforgiving florescent house lights come on) sometimes results in more than an awkward night with a stranger. Desperation-fueled desirability can be exploited by a wide range of manipulators ranging from con artists to sexual predators.  The fear of singleness leads to lower standards when relationship shopping and a willingness to settle for less, adopting the belief that being involved in any relationship is better than the alternative of being alone.2    Once such people embark upon relationships, the fear of being single results in lower standards even within relationships in order to maintain the status quo.3  If God forbid relationships fizzle, many people jump right back into relational shopping mode, seeking to re-partner quickly.4   The Wisdom of Delayed Satisfaction In an age of immediate gratification, impulse buying is rampant, as well as reckless, and risky. Experience and empirical research support the wisdom of delayed satisfaction in selecting products as well as partners.  In an era where many people Google everything before indulging, take the time to make sure what you are buying is as good as it looks. [1] William G. Graziano and Jennifer Weisho Bruce, “Attraction and the Initiation of Relationships: A Review of the Empirical Literature,” in Handbook of Relationship Initiation, eds. Susan Sprecher, Amy Wenzel, and John Harvey (New York: Psychology Press, 2008), 269–95 (281). [2] Stephanie S. Spielmann, Geoff MacDonald, Jessica A. Maxwell, Samantha Joel, Diana Peragine, Amy Muise, and Emily Impett, “Settling for Less Out of Fear of Being Single,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2013): 1–25 (1).   [3] Spielmann et al., “Settling for Less,” 20. [4] Mark A. Fine, Tina A. Coffelt, and Loreen N. Olson, “Romantic Relationship Initiation Following Relationship Dissolution,” in Handbook of Relationship Initiation, eds. Susan Sprecher, Amy Wenzel, and John Harvey (New York: Psychology Press, 2008), 391–407 (391).  Topics:  Law and Crime Relationships Subtitle:  The Dangers of Relationship Shopping When You Are Hungry Blog to Post to:  Why Bad Looks Good Teaser Text:  The "Last Call" phenomenon describes the desperation-fueled perception of desirability that often accompanies relationship shopping when you are hungry. Teaser Image:  Mature Audiences Only:  Images:  Content Topics:  Relationships Personality Self-Control Identity Consumer Behavior Alcohol Appetite Wisdom Fear Sex Quote
Searching for sex One of the many reasons sex is puzzling is that we lack reliable data.
10 More Things Your Therapist Won’t Tell You A few years ago, I wrote about some of the secrets your therapist won’t tell you. It’s about time we revisited that topic and shared 10 more things your therapist likely won’t tell you about therapy, treatment of mental illness, or their profession. I share these things not to scare...
Study Finds Memory Has a Fascinating Effect On Sleep Poor sleep's negative effect on memory is well-known, but what about the effect of memory on sleep? Dr Jeremy Dean is a psychologist and author of PsyBlog. His latest book is "Making Habits, Breaking Habits: How to Make Changes That Stick" Advertisement6 Foods That Fight Belly Fat Brought On By Yo-Yo Dieting. Related articles:You Can Learn a New Language While You Sleep, Study Finds How Sleep After Learning Enhances Memory Hidden Caves in the Brain Open Up During Sleep to Wash Away Toxins Nasal Spray Effective Treatment For Memory Loss and Alzheimer’s, Study Finds Lack of Sleep During Critical Period of Night Linked to Dementia Risk
Psychology Around the Net: January 24, 2014 Ever wonder what makes you — and keeps you — a loyal customer? How about ways to strength train your brain? Oh, and speaking of your brain — where does all that fear and anxiety come from, anyway? We have it all and more in this week’s Psychology Around the...
How Emotional Should You Be? Sure, some people are predisposed toward being emotional. But we have some control over that. What should we aim for? And under what circumstances? Perhaps this internal debate will help you gain some clarity. Person: I like being able to express my feelings, to be authentic. Alter ego: But you can pay a big price, especially at work. It seems they want you to always function in a narrow range: from neutral to pleased. There’s little tolerance for anger or sadness. And there’s good reason for that—Remember that place you worked where it was “Let it all hang out?” You all spent so much of time worrying about and processing people’s feelings that little work got done.  Person: But a heartless workplace leads to a dehumanization: treating workers like fungible work machines instead of human beings. In a coldhearted workplace, people are more likely to backstab rather than be supportive and to make unethical decisions about what products to make, how to market them, and so on. Alter ego: I guess, as with many things, it’s about balance. No? Person: I guess, but I’m a heart-centered person. I feel things deeply, even when I watch the news or a movie. To shut that all down feels like denying my essence. Alter ego: But haven’t you paid a big price for that essence? A boss called you high-maintenance, two boyfriends have left you for being so emotional, and you make yourself miserable half the time by being so in-touch with your feelings. Your life would be easier and more successful if you stopped all the navel gazing and just got on with your life. Less processing, more action. Person:  But I don’t want to be a sterile person. I want a boyfriend who will welcome intimacy and yes, processing my feelings…and me to support him in processing his. Isn’t a relationship is supposed to be about intimate communication? Alter ego: You’re in la-la land. Very few guys are interested in all that processing. They feel that all that talk rarely gets you anywhere. Not only do they find it boring, they’re frustrated that you mainly just want to be heard and not get any advice. Guys would rather just go into their man cave and watch TV, play a video game, or work. Person:  Maybe I need to go out with more counselor types. Alter ego: Maybe, but you can’t expect to get everything from one person. Why not rely on your girlfriends for your processing needs and a guy for, well, other needs? Person:  You’re right but we’ve kind of veered from the key issue here: How emotional should I allow myself to be? Alter ego: You’ll always be somewhat emotional. That’s your nature. Because of that, you should try to keep your emotions under wraps more. Otherwise, too many people will view you as out of control or even a basket case. Person:  But how do I do that? My emotions sometimes just spew out. And even if they don’t, my face shows everything. Alter ego: The best you can do is to remind yourself how much of a price you’ve paid for being so emotional and, for the next few days, concentrate on keeping your emotions in check. Hopefully, that will become more automatic, more of a habit, so you don’t have to think about it all the time. Person:  It seems exhausting having to be that vigilant. Alter ego: Well, are there particular times you need to be vigilant? Person: Around my boss. She is absolutely no-nonsense. Once, someone cried and a meeting and she said, “Gimme a break!” Alter ego: Okay, so you’ll really be careful around your boss. Any other time? Person:  There’s that admin across from my desk. I don’t trust her. I think she wants my job. Alter ego: Anyone else? Person: You’re right—when I’m dating. People want their personal lives to be a break from work’s stresses not another source of sturm und drang. But I know me. I’m not going to be that in-control. What if I blow it—like even cry at a meeting. Alter ego: Forgive yourself. Person:  I’ll try. (sigh.) The Upshot So think of key circumstances in your life. Should you display more or less emotion? Marty Nemko’s bio is in Wikipedia. Topics:  Personality Subtitle:  An internal debate on the benefits and costs of a heart-centered existence. Blog to Post to:  How To Do Life Teaser Text:  An internal debate on the benefits and costs of a heart-centered existence. Teaser Image:  Mature Audiences Only:  Images:  Content Topics:  Career Forgiveness Environment Mating Anger Quote
“How Can This Mountain Be for Me Alone?” “How can the mountain be for me alone?  Still it is, I think, for me alone,” is one of my favorite tankas by Shinagawa Tetsuzan. The Universe likes to witness itself.  An argument could be made that conscious life itself is Nature’s hunger for mirroring itself.  If taken at face...
Women Want Short-Term Mates, Too? In a recent investigation of sexual diversity among eight Makushi communities in Guyana, Schacht and Mulder (2015) asked dozens of people about their “sociosexuality” (i.e., the degree one is willing to have sex without commitment). They found in Makushi communities with extremely high sex ratios (where many more men than women exist), men’s sociosexuality was so low that it was nearly identical to women’s. Does this mean that men’s and women’s evolved sexual psychology is identical in adaptive design? No, not even close. Let me explain why. It seems just about every year a new group of researchers asserts they have “debunked” some basic tenet of evolutionary psychology. A recurring claim is evolutionary explanations of human sex differences must be wrong if researchers are able to show women are at all interested in short-term mating, particularly when they seem just as interested as men are (Schacht & Mulder, 2015). In truth, finding women are acutely interested in short-term mating is entirely unsurprising to evolutionary psychologists. In fact, they have been predicting and confirming women’s short-term mating tendencies for decades. It is simply untrue that evolutionary psychologists expect all women are solely monogamous and all men are entirely promiscuous, or that researchers should expect humans comport to a “coy females and ardent males” stereotype (Schacht & Mulder, 2015, p. 1). When scientists make such a misguided claim about evolutionary psychology they are engaging in a Straw Man argument. In short, they are setting up a false portrayal of evolutionary psychological science. Although I have written about this before (see ), let me revisit two fundamental reasons why this is clearly a Straw Man argument. First, more than 20 years of empirical evidence has been accumulated by evolutionary psychologists confirming that women are, in all likelihood, “specially-designed” for short-term mating. That women possess highly evolved short-term mating strategies has been a foundational feature of evolutionary psychology since the early 1990s (Buss & Schmitt, 1993*; Kenrick et al., 1990), and several programs of research, many supported by literally dozens of studies, strongly support this assertion. Historically, evolutionary psychologists were among the first psychologists to treat women’s short-term mating as an adaptive reproductive strategy (most other psychologists did, and still do, treat short-term mating as entirely dysfunctional or pathological, a failure to "bond" with your one true love; I call it the Disney-fication of women’s sexuality by majority of sex researchers who follow the Standard Social Science Model). What evidence is there that evolutionary psychologists expected women to be designed for short-term mating? Some of the earliest studies by evolutionary psychologists on women’s adaptive desires for short-term mating include: Buss, D. M. & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116. Scheib, J.E. (1994). Sperm donor selection and the psychology of female mate choice. Ethology & Sociobiology, 15, 113-129. Seal, D.W., Agostinelli, G. & Hannett, C.A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51. And evolutionary psychologists kept digging into the special psychology of women’s short-term mating desires in the late 90s: Regan, P. C. (1998). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73. Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303. Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 25–37. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., Christensen, P., Niels, K. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159-172. Wiederman, M. W., & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153–170. And into the early 2000s, some of the studies included: Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-587. Grammer, K., Renninger, L. and Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41, 66–74. Greiling, H. and Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of short-term mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929–963. Little, A.C., Jones, B.C., Penton-Voak, I.S., Burt, D.M., & Perrett, D.I. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1095-1103. Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2005). Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected duration of relationship. Biological Psychology, 70, 38-43. Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., Perrett, D. I. (2003): Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 264–271. Regan, P.C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21. Regan, P.C., Medina, R., & Joshi, A. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 625-633. Schmitt, D. P., Couden, A., & Baker, M. (2001). Sex, temporal context, and romantic desire: An experimental evaluation of Sexual Strategies Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 833–847. Scheib, J.E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women's trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 8, 371-389. Shackelford, T. K., Weekes, V. A., LeBlanc, G. J., Bleske, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2000). Female coital orgasm and male attractiveness. Human Nature, 11, 299-306. Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843–853. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2003). Do women have evolved adaptation for extra-pair copulation? In Evolutionary aesthetics (pp. 341-368). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Then into the late 2000s: Guéguen, N. (2009). Menstrual cycle phases and female receptivity to a courtship solicitation: An evaluation in a nightclub. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 351-355. Haselton, M. G. & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature, 17, 50–73. Li, N. (2007). Mate preference necessities in long- and short-term mating: People prioritize in themselves what their mates prioritize in them. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 528-535. Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489. Pillsworth, E. G., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution & Human Behavior, 27, 247–258. Pipitone, R. N., & Gallup Jr, G. G. (2008). Women's voice attractiveness varies across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 268-274. Provost, M.P., Kormos, C., Kosakoski, G., & Quinsey, V.L. (2006). Sociosexuality in women and preference for facial masculinization and somatotype in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 305-312. Provost, M.P., Troje, N.F.,& Quinsey, V.L. (2008). Short-term mating strategies and attraction to masculinity in point-light walkers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 65-69. Puts, D. A. (2006). Cyclic variation in women’s preferences for masculine traits: Potential hormonal causes. Human Nature, 17, 114–127. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. Heck, it is still going on right now. These evolutionary psychologists cannot seem to leave women’s short-term mating psychology alone. It is like they are obsessed: DeBruine, L. M. (2014). Women’s preferences for male facial features. In Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior (pp. 261-275). Springer New York. Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Cousins, A. J., & Thornhill, R. (in press). Intersexual conflict across women's ovulatory cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2010). Fertility in the cycle predicts women's interest in sexual opportunism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 400-411. Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women's mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1205-1259. Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (in press). Meta-analyses and p-curves support robust cycle shifts in women’s mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014). Hughes, S.M., Farley, S.D., & Rhodes, B.C. (2010). Vocal and physiological changes in response to the physical attractiveness of conversational partners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 155–167. Larson, C.M., Pillsworth, E.G., Haselton, M.G. (2012). Ovulatory shifts in women’s attractions to primary partners and other men: Further evidence of the importance of primary partner sexual attractiveness. PLoS ONE, 7, e44456. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044456. Quist, M.C., Watkins, C.D., Smith, F.G., Little, A.C., DeBruine, L.M., Jones, B.C. (2012). Sociosexuality predicts women's preferences for symmetry in men's faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1415-1421. Sacco, D.F., Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L.M., Hugenberg, K. (2012). The roles of sociosexual orientation and relationship status in women’s face preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1044-1047. Schmitt, D.P., Jonason, P.K., Byerley, G.J., Flores, S.D., Illbeck, B.E., O‘Leary, K.N., & Qudrat, A. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies reveal old truths? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 135-139. It is utterly astounding that any researcher at all familiar with modern psychological science would claim today that evolutionary psychologists believe all women are designed to be monogamous, whereas all men are designed to be promiscuous. Such a claim by a scientist is, quite frankly, intellectual flim-flamming. And it needs to stop. The second critical reason why documenting women’s interest in short-term mating does not debunk evolution’s relevance to human sexuality is that, although women are designed for short-term mating, per se, the psychological “special design” of women's short-term mating strategy (e.g., heightened preferences for masculinity and bodily symmetry) is different from the special design of men's short-term mating strategy (e.g., generally relaxed mate preferences and indiscriminately desiring large numbers of partners). In short, women and men do not want pursue short-term mating in the same way, nor do they desire identical attributes in potential short-term mates.   Women are extremely sexual beings, for sure, and short-term mating is a part of their strategic repertoire according to evolutionary psychologists. Indeed, in some ways women appear more specially-designed for short-term sex than men are. But when pursuing a short-term mating strategy, women tend to desire high quality over high quantity (Thornhill & Gangestad, 2008). In contrast, men tend to be less insistent on high quality when short-term mating (on average, there are important intrasexual variations, too; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). What evidence is there of these differences in short-term mating design? Quite a bit (for a review, see Schmitt, 2014). Schmitt, D.P. (2014). Evaluating evidence of mate preference adaptations: How do we really know what Homo sapiens sapiens really want? In Weekes-Shackelford, V.A., & Shackelford, T.K. (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 3-39). New York: Springer. Perhaps the most convincing evidence for sex differences in the special design of short-term mating psychology comes from studies looking at sex differences in attitudes and behaviors involving opportunistic, low cost, or anonymous sex. Nearly all point in the direction of men, on average, having more desires for opportunistic, low cost, or anonymous casual sex than women do. Results in support of this view (along with some sample references) include this sample of 20 empirical findings: 1. Men are more likely than women to engage in extradyadic sex (Atkins et al. 2001; Glass & Wright 1985; Oliver & Hyde 1993; Petersen & Hyde 2010; Thompson 1983; Wiederman 1997) 2. Men are more likely than women to be sexually unfaithful multiple times with different sexual partners (Blumstein & Schwartz 1983; Brand et al. 2007; Hansen 1987; Laumann et al. 1994; Lawson & Samson 1988; Spanier & Margolis 1983) 3. Men are more likely than women to seek short-term sex partners that are already married (Davies et al. 2007; Jonason et al. 2009; Parker & Burkley 2009; Schmitt et al. 2004; Schmitt & Buss 2001) 4. Men are more likely than women to have sexual fantasies involving short-term sex and multiple opposite-sex partners (Ehrlichman & Eichenstein 1992; Ellis & Symons 1990; Jones & Barlow 1990; Leitenberg & Henning 1995; Rokach 1990) 5. Men are more likely than women to pay for short-term sex with (male or female) prostitutes (Burley & Symanski 1981; Mitchell & Latimer 2009; Symons 1979) 6. Men are more likely than women to enjoy sexual magazines and videos containing themes of short-term sex and sex with multiple partners (Hald 2006; Koukounas & McCabe 1997; Malamuth 1996; Murnen & Stockton 1997; Salmon & Symons 2001; Youn 2006) 7. Men are more likely than women to desire, have, and reproductively benefit from multiple mates and spouses (Bereczkei & Csanaky 1996; Betzig 1986; Jokela et al. 2010; Perusse 1993; Stone et al. 2005; Zerjal et al. 2003) 8. Men desire larger numbers of sex partners than women do over brief periods of time (Fenigstein & Preston 2007; McBurney et al. 2005; Njus & Bane 2009; Rowatt & Schmitt 2003; Schmitt et al. 2003; Wilcox 2003) 9. Men are more likely than women to seek one-night stands (Herold & Mewhinney 1993; Spanier & Margolis 1983) 10. Men are quicker than women to consent to having sex after a brief period of time (Cohen & Shotland 1996; McCabe 1987; Njus & Bane 2009; Rowatt & Schmitt 2003; Schmitt et al. 2003) 11. Men are more likely than women to consent to sex with a stranger (Clark 1990; Clark & Hatfield 1989; Greitemeyer 2005; Hald & Høgh-Olesen 2010; Schützwohl et al. 2009; Voracek et al. 2005; Voracek et al. 2006) In 1989, Clark and Hatfield had experimental confederates approach college students across various campuses and ask if they would like to have sex. Around 75% of men agreed to have sex with a complete stranger, whereas no women (0%) agreed to sex with a complete stranger. Given that about 50% of men in college are "in a relationship" at any given time, this might imply a lot of men walk around pretty much ready to go, even if they are in a relationship. Twenty years later, Hald and Høgh-Olesen (2010) largely replicated these findings in Denmark, with 59% of single men and 0% of single women agreeing to the proposition, “Would you go to bed with me?” and Gueguen (2011) had confederates of various levels of physical attractiveness actually approach real-life strangers and ask if they would have sex, finding 83% of men agreed to have sex with a highly attractive woman and 60% of men agreed to sex with a woman of average attractiveness. For women, 3% agreed to have sex with a highly attractive man, but no woman (0%) agreed to sex with a man of average attractiveness. So, it is not that women are never willing to have sex with strangers. He's got to be pretty good-looking, though. 12. Men are more likely than women to want, initiate, and enjoy a variety of sex practices (Baumeister et al. 2001; Laumann et al. 1994; Purnine et al. 1994) 13. Men have more positive attitudes than women toward casual sex and short-term mating (Hendrick et al. 1985; Laumann et al. 1994; Oliver & Hyde 1993; Petersen & Hyde 2010) 14. Men are less likely than women to regret short-term sex or “hook-ups” (Bradshaw et al. 2010; Campbell 2008; de Graaf & Sandfort 2004; Paul & Hayes 2002; Roese et al. 2006; Townsend et al. 1995) 15. Men succumb to sexual temptations more than women because they have more sexual impulses than women do, not because women have better sexual self-control (Tidwell & Eastwick, 2013). Tidwell, N. D., & Eastwick, P. W. (2013). Sex Differences in Succumbing to Sexual Temptations a Function of Impulse or Control? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0146167213499614... 16. Men have more unrestricted sociosexual attitudes and behaviors than women (Clark 2006; Lippa 2009; Schmitt 2005a; Schmitt et al. 2001; Simpson et al. 2004; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) 17. Men generally relax mate preferences (whereas women increase selectivity for physical attractiveness) in short-term mating contexts (Kenrick et al. 1990; Kenrick et al. 1993; Li et al. 2002; Li and Kenrick 2006; Regan 1998a, 1998b; Regan & Berscheid, 1997; Regan et al., 2000; Simpson & Gangestad, 1992; Stewart et al., 2000; Wiederman & Dubois, 1998) 18. Men perceive more sexual interest from strangers than women (Abbey 1982; Haselton & Buss 2000; Henningsen et al. 2006; Sigal et al. 1988) 19. Gay men much more likely to have extra-pair sex then lesbians Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) studied 6,071 long-term established couples (married/cohabiting, gays and lesbians included) found these sex differences: In response the question…ever have an affair? Heterosexual Husbands (12% said yes) > Heterosexual Wives (7% said yes) Gays (76% said yes) > Lesbians (11% said yes) 20.  Men have higher general sex drive than women across almost all measures and all studied cultures, with a culture’s size of sex differences in sex drive being unrelated to sociopolitical gender equity (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001; Lippa, 2009) It is true that there are cultural variations and gendered contextual influences on many aspects of short-term mating desires (e.g., see Schmitt, 2005 on sociosexuality varying across 48 nations), but sex differences in casual sex desires typically vary from medium to large across cultures, the differences almost never completely disappear. Historically and cross-culturally one can sometimes come across exceptions, such as the Shakers religion not allowing any physical contact between men and women, hence no sex differences in casual sex behavior there. Schacht and Mulder (2015), as noted earlier, found across eight Makushi communities in Guyana that in populations with extremely high sex ratios (in one there were 1.43 men for every 1 woman, a very high ratio), men’s sociosexuality was so low that it was nearly identical to women’s. The raw data are available from this study [doi:10.5061/dryad.587v1], and the sample sizes are quite small yielding very low power for detecting significant differences within communities (the average community sample was just short of 38 people). Nevertheless, based on these data it does appear in the highest sex ratio community that women’s average sociosexuality (M = 27.2, SD = 12.9) just as high as men’s (M = 26.6, SD = 13.5), a small effect size (d = -0.05). In the community with the second highest sex ratio (1.33 men per woman), women’s average sociosexuality (M = 23.5, SD = 8.7) was not as high as men’s (M = 30.7, SD = 24.1), a moderately-sized difference, d = 0.45. Whereas in the community with the lowest sex ratio (0.93 men per woman), women’s average sociosexuality (M = 25.2, SD = 16.3) was not even close to as high as men’s (M = 54.3, SD = 37.7), a very large sex difference of d = 1.08. When looking only at single people across these three communities, the sex differences shift to become much larger (d = 0.66, d = 0.92, and d = 2.56, respectively).   As the Schacht and Mulder (2015) note, others have found similar apparent suppression of men’s sociosexuality when women are so rare they are able to insist men must engage in long-term mating in order to have sex (Schmitt, 2005). Of course, it is worth noting that when men are the scarcer sex, they do not insist that women engage in long-term mating in order to have sex. Unless one wanted to argue men are suppressing their own sociosexuality in high sex ratio cultures, the population-varying sex differences actually reveal a fundamental difference in men’s and women’s preferred mating strategies. When women are scarce and have the greater dyadic power, a culture of long-term mating ensues. Do sex difference in all aspects of sociosexuality completely disappear? Likely not. Not in desires and attitudes, and likely not among those who are single, as noted above. Another example of an evolved sex difference not always manifesting itself across all cultures is the sex difference in physical height. Among cultures in high altitude ecologies, the sex difference is minimized and sometimes nearly absent as shorter body frames provide for much better survival (Gaulin, 1992; Gaulin & Sailer, 1983). Among most ecologies, though, sex differences in height are readily seen, and even manifest as the largest in nations that have the most sociopolitical gender equality (such as in Scandinavian nations; for fuller discussion of these issues, see Schmitt, 2014). The key with contextualizing historical and cross-cultural analyses is to consider the hyperspace of all possible cultural forms and determine whether there are detectable patterns across real human cultures that deviate from this potential hyperspace of cultures (past, present, foraging, modern, and so forth; Cronk, 1999). Existing evidence suggests strong and patterned deviations from random sexual desire differences between men and women when it comes to short-term mating. Most importantly, cultural exceptions, when found, do not obviate our need to explain these generally vast and enduring patterns of sex differences. Instead, it leads us to consider what other adaptations (e.g., religiosity) are overwhelming or interacting with evolved sex differences, including whether certain sexual adaptations are specially-designed to be facultatively responsive to local ecological circumstances, such as local pathogen levels or sex ratios (see Schmitt, 2005). Cultural exceptions to sex differences often implicate more evolutionary psychology is needed to explain extant findings, not less. And please, enough with the Straw Men!   *contact the author for details on specific references (see also, Buss & Schmitt, 2011). Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768-787. Schacht, R., & Mulder, M. B. (2015). Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 140402. Subtitle:  Evolutionary Psychology Says Yes! Blog to Post to:  Sexual Personalities Teaser Text:  All Men are Promiscuous, All Women are Monogamous? No. Teaser Image:  Mature Audiences Only:  Content Topics:  Evolutionary Psychology Intelligence Self-Control Personality Religion Sexual Orientation Motivation Bias Sex Fantasies Marriage Mating Environment Orgasm Gender Neuroscience Quote
4 Steps to Breaking Up with Managed Care Breaking Up is Hard to Do We’ve talked a lot recently about the benefits of switching from using a managed care system to a private pay model. It benefits your clients, it benefits you, and overall it just benefits your practice (click here for a post detailing the math and financial advantage...
Understanding Trichotillomania   Trichotillomania or hair pulling is a disorder where a person constantly has the urge to pull their hair from the scalp, eyebrows, beard, legs, arms or other parts of the body. For some, hair pulling can be managed but for others the urge to pull hair is overwhelming. Individuals...
Creative People, Mental Health, Misdiagnosis A full list of talented and creative people who suffer anxiety, depression and other mental health challenges, would, of course, be limitless; being creative, gifted and talented does not exempt any of us from those problems. Novelist Patricia Cornwell is one example of an artist who has experienced mental health...
Lucky charms: When are superstitions used most? It might be a lucky pair of socks, or a piece of jewelry; whatever the item, many people turn to a superstition or lucky charm to help achieve a goal. For instance, you used a specific avatar to win a game and now you see that avatar as lucky. Superstitions are most likely to occur [...]The post Lucky charms: When are superstitions used most? appeared first on PsyPost.