Sexual selection and sex differences in the prevalence of childhood externalizing and adolescent internalizing disorders.

2013 ◽  
Vol 139 (6) ◽  
pp. 1221-1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle M. Martel
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Internalizing Disorders

scholarly journals Was facial width-to-height ratio subject to sexual selection pressures? A life course approach

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn R. Hodges-Simeon ◽  
Graham Albert ◽  
George B. Richardson ◽  
Timothy S. McHale ◽  
Seth M. Weinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Facial Morphology ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Height Ratio ◽  
Lower Face ◽  
Male Adolescents ◽  
Classic Pattern ◽  
Facial Development

AbstractSexual selection researchers have traditionally focused on adult sex differences; however, the schedule and pattern of sex-specific ontogeny can provide insights unobtainable from an exclusive focus on adults. Recently, it has been debated whether facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR; bi-zygomatic breadth divided by midface height) is a human secondary sexual characteristic (SSC). Here, we review current evidence, then address this debate using ontogenetic evidence, which has been under-explored in fWHR research. Facial measurements collected from males and females aged 3 to 40 (Study 1; US, n=2449), and 7 to 21 (Study 2; Bolivia, n=179) were used to calculate three fWHR variants (which we call fWHRnasion, fWHRstomion, and fWHRbrow) and two other common facial masculinity ratios (facial width-to-lower-face-height ratio, fWHRlower, and cheekbone prominence). We test whether the observed pattern of facial development exhibits patterns indicative of SSCs, i.e. differential adolescent growth in either male or female facial morphology leading to an adult sex difference. Results showed that only fWHRlower exhibited both adult sex differences as well as the classic pattern of ontogeny for SSCs—greater lower-face growth in male adolescents relative to females. fWHRbrow was significantly wider among both pre- and post-pubertal males in the 2D sample; post-hoc analyses revealed that the effect was driven by large sex differences in brow height, with females having higher placed brows than males across ages. In both samples, all fWHR measures were inversely associated with age; that is, human facial growth is characterized by greater relative growth in the mid-face and lower face relative to facial width. This trend continues even into middle adulthood. BMI was also a positive predictor of most of the ratios across ages, with greater BMI associated with wider faces. Researchers collecting data on fWHR should target fWHRlower and fWHRbrow and should control for both age and BMI.

Sexual Selection, Receiver Biases, and the Evolution of Sex Differences

1998 ◽  
Vol 281 (5385) ◽  
pp. 1999-2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Evolution Of Sex

scholarly journals Sex differences in age-to-maturation relate to sexual selection and adult sex ratios in birds

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-53
Author(s):  
Sergio Ancona ◽  
András Liker ◽  
M. Cristina Carmona-Isunza ◽  
Tamás Székely
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Sex Ratios

Sexual selection does not provide an adequate theory of sex differences in aggression

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 276-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice H. Eagly ◽  
Wendy Wood
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Adequate Account ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Biosocial Theory ◽  
Adequate Theory ◽  
Sexual Selection Theory ◽  
Physical Attributes ◽  
Reproductive Activities

AbstractOur social role/biosocial theory provides a more adequate account of aggression sex differences than does Archer's sexual selection theory. In our theory, these sex differences arise flexibly from sociocultural and ecological forces in interaction with humans' biology, as defined by female and male physical attributes and reproductive activities. Our comments elaborate our theory's explanations for the varied phenomena that Archer presents.

scholarly journals Sex differences in lizard escape decisions vary with latitude, but not sexual dimorphism

2015 ◽  
Vol 282 (1805) ◽  
pp. 20150050 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diogo S. M. Samia ◽  
Anders Pape Møller ◽  
Daniel T. Blumstein ◽  
Theodore Stankowich ◽  
William E. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Reproductive Effort ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Specific Behaviour ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Natural And Sexual Selection ◽  
Predator Behaviour ◽  
Latitudinal Effect

Sexual selection is a powerful evolutionary mechanism that has shaped the physiology, behaviour and morphology of the sexes to the extent that it can reduce viability while promoting traits that enhance reproductive success. Predation is one of the underlying mechanisms accounting for viability costs of sexual displays. Therefore, we should expect that individuals of the two sexes adjust their anti-predator behaviour in response to changes in predation risk. We conducted a meta-analysis of 28 studies (42 species) of sex differences in risk-taking behaviour in lizards and tested whether these differences could be explained by sexual dichromatism, by sexual size dimorphism or by latitude. Latitude was the best predictor of the interspecific heterogeneity in sex-specific behaviour. Males did not change their escape behaviour with latitude, whereas females had increasingly reduced wariness at higher latitudes. We hypothesize that this sex difference in risk-taking behaviour is linked to sex-specific environmental constraints that more strongly affect the reproductive effort of females than males. This novel latitudinal effect on sex-specific anti-predator behaviour has important implications for responses to climate change and for the relative roles of natural and sexual selection in different species.

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.

scholarly journals Understanding sex differences in the cost of terrestrial locomotion

2011 ◽  
Vol 279 (1729) ◽  
pp. 826-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Lees ◽  
Robert L. Nudds ◽  
Lars P. Folkow ◽  
Karl-Arne Stokkan ◽  
Jonathan R. Codd
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Locomotor System ◽  
Terrestrial Locomotion ◽  
Female Data ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Morphological Differences ◽  
Lagopus Muta ◽  
The Cost

Little is known regarding the physiological consequences of the behavioural and morphological differences that result from sexual selection in birds. Male and female Svalbard rock ptarmigans ( Lagopus muta hyperborea ) exhibit distinctive behavioural differences during the breeding season. In particular, males continuously compete for and defend territories in order to breed successfully, placing large demands on their locomotor system. Here, we demonstrate that male birds have improved locomotor performance compared with females, showing both a lower cost of locomotion (CoL) and a higher top speed. We propose that the observed sex differences in locomotor capability may be due to sexual selection for improved male performance. While the mechanisms underlying these energetic differences are unclear, future studies should be wary when pooling male and female data.

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.

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.

scholarly journals HOMAGE TO BATEMAN: SEX ROLES PREDICT SEX DIFFERENCES IN SEXUAL SELECTION

Evolution ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 67 (7) ◽  
pp. 1926-1936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karoline Fritzsche ◽  
Göran Arnqvist
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Sex Roles
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document