Does sexual selection explain why human aggression peaks in early childhood?

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 267-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Behme
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Compelling Evidence ◽  
Social Role Theory ◽  
Human Aggression ◽  
Better Than

AbstractArcher provides seemingly compelling evidence for his claim that sexual selection explains sex differences in human aggression better than social role theory. I challenge Archer's interpretation of some of this evidence. I argue that the same evidence could be used to support the claim that what has been selected for is theability to curbaggression and discuss implications for Archer's theory.

scholarly journals Sex differences in the developmental antecedents of aggression

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 269-270
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Boden
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Social Role Theory ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Sexual Selection Theory ◽  
Developmental Antecedents

AbstractArcher examines sex differences in aggression, and argues that these differences may be better explained by sexual selection theory than by social role theory. This commentary examines sex differences in the developmental antecedents of aggression and violence, and presents a preliminary framework for examining whether the observed sex differences amongst these developmental antecedents can also be accounted for by sexual selection theory.

scholarly journals Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression?

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 249-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Archer
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Physical Aggression ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Roles ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Reproductive Competition ◽  
Threat Displays ◽  
Males And Females

AbstractI argue that the magnitude and nature of sex differences in aggression, their development, causation, and variability, can be better explained by sexual selection than by the alternative biosocial version of social role theory. Thus, sex differences in physical aggression increase with the degree of risk, occur early in life, peak in young adulthood, and are likely to be mediated by greater male impulsiveness, and greater female fear of physical danger. Male variability in physical aggression is consistent with an alternative life history perspective, and context-dependent variability with responses to reproductive competition, although some variability follows the internal and external influences of social roles. Other sex differences, in variance in reproductive output, threat displays, size and strength, maturation rates, and mortality and conception rates, all indicate that male aggression is part of a sexually selected adaptive complex. Physical aggression between partners can be explained using different evolutionary principles, arising from the conflicts of interest between males and females entering a reproductive alliance, combined with variability following differences in societal gender roles. In this case, social roles are particularly important since they enable both the relatively equality in physical aggression between partners from Western nations, and the considerable cross-national variability, to be explained.

Gender Differences in Intended Escalatory Tendencies Among Marital Partners

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (18) ◽  
pp. 3599-3617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeev Winstok ◽  
Murray A. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Physical Aggression ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Male Partner ◽  
Social Role Theory ◽  
Sexual Selection Theory ◽  
Status Enhancement

This study addresses the intended escalatory tendency in eight hypothetical situations in which the provocator’s identity (partner or stranger, male or female) and the provocation form (verbal or physical aggression) were manipulated. The research question is “how does the identity of the provocator and the form of his or her provocation affect the participant’s intended escalation level, and does the gender of the participant affect differences in intended escalation level?” The research sample consisted of 208 Israeli couples. The main finding is that women’s intended response to their male partner is more escalatory than men’s intended response to their female partner. Results also show that women’s escalation is the most severe to partner provocation and the least severe to male strangers’ provocation. Men’s escalation is the most severe to provocation by male strangers and the least severe to their partner’s provocation. Findings indicate that men’s intention to escalate decreases as their partner’s provocation becomes more severe. The severity of provocation has little effect on women’s inten–tion to escalate. Such results are consistent with social role theory and sexual selection theory that maintain that status enhancement is more important for men than for women, and is more important for men than risk reduction is, whereas the opposite is true for women.

Refining the sexual selection explanation within an ethological framework

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 292-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Archer
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Uncertainty Theory ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Human Sex Differences ◽  
Paternity Uncertainty ◽  
Target Article

AbstractMy response is organized into three sections. The first revisits the theme of the target article, the explanatory power of sexual selection versus social role theory. The second considers the range and scope of sexual selection, and its application to human sex differences. Two topics are examined in more detail: (1) the paternity uncertainty theory of partner violence; (2) evolution of inter-group aggression. Section 4 covers ultimate and proximal explanations and their integration within an ethological approach. I consider the development of sex differences in aggression, and their causal mechanisms, within this framework.

Sex differences in aggression: Origins and implications for sexual integration of combat forces

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 270-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kingsley R. Browne
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Social Role Theory ◽  
The Social ◽  
Risk Taking Behaviors ◽  
Female Soldiers ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Military Combat

AbstractSex differences in aggressive and risk-taking behaviors have practical implications for sexual integration of military combat units. The social-role theory implies that female soldiers will adapt to their role and display the same aggressive and risk-taking propensities as their male comrades. If sex differences reflect evolved propensities, however, adoption of the soldier's role is unlikely to eliminate those differences.

Sex, aggression, and life history strategy

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 278-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelio José Figueredo ◽  
Paul Robert Gladden ◽  
Barbara Hagenah Brumbach
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Role Theory ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Life History Strategy ◽  
Social Role Theory ◽  
Human Exceptionalism ◽  
Direct Competition ◽  
Theoretical Predictions ◽  
Strong Inference ◽  
Direct Aggression

AbstractWe agree that sexual selection is a more comprehensive explanation for sex differences in direct aggression than social role theory, which is an unparsimonious and vestigial remnant of human exceptionalism. Nevertheless, Archer misses several opportunities to put the theoretical predictions made by himself and by others into direct competition in a way that would further the interests of strong inference.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document