Cari D. Goetz

Evolutionary psychology: controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations

Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science. At the same time, it has generated critiques and remains controversial among some psychologists. Some of the controversy stems from hypotheses that go against traditional psychological theories; some from empirical findings that may have disturbing implications; some from misunderstandings about the logic of evolutionary psychology; and some from reasonable scientific concerns about its underlying framework. This article identifies some of the most common concerns and attempts to elucidate evolutionary psychologys stance pertaining to them. These include issues of testability and falsifiability; the domain specificity versus domain generality of psychological mechanisms; the role of novel environments as they interact with evolved psychological circuits; the role of genes in the conceptual structure of evolutionary psychology; the roles of learning, socialization, and culture in evolutionary psychology; and the practical value of applied evolutionary psychology. The article concludes with a discussion of the limitations of current evolutionary psychology.

Trade-Offs, Individual Differences, and Misunderstandings about Evolutionary Psychology.

Replies to comments on Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations (see record 2010-02208-001) by Confer et al. The purpose of which was to clarify the logic of evolutionary psychology and clear up some of the more common misunderstandings about it. In this response, we address the key points raised by the commentators.

Human Mate Choice, Evolution of

Evolutionary perspectives on human mating have generated a substantial corpus of work that reveals important sex differences in mate choice and preferences. Both men and women engage in multiple mating strategies, from long-term committed relationships to short-term sexual liaisons. This article summarizes how sex-specific adaptive problems faced by our ancestors shaped mens mate choices, including preferences for cues to fertility, sexual availability, faithfulness, and numerous partners; and womens mate choices, including preferences for cues to ambition, dependability, and investment potential. We also examine how these preferences differ in long-term compared to short-term mating contexts. Understanding the evolved nature of these differences is crucial not only in expanding understanding of human mating behaviors, but also in understanding the sexual conflict that results from sex differences in mate choice.

What Do Women's Advertised Mate Preferences Reveal? An Analysis of Video Dating Profiles

This study examined womens video dating profiles to determine what their advertised mate preferences revealed about their mate value and relationship interests. Women created a one-minute long video dating profile for a hypothetical dating website. The videos were content analyzed into four categories of stated mate preferences: 1) “good genes” indicators 2) good resource investment potential indicators 3) good parenting indicators and 4) good partner indicators. Long-term mating interest was positively correlated with describing good partner indicators and self-perceived mate value was positively correlated with describing good genes indicators. Short-term mating interest was negatively correlated with describing any mate preferences while attractiveness was positively correlated with doing so. Results suggest that womens advertised mate preferences provide clues to their underlying relationship interests and mate value.

Attachment strategies across sex, ontogeny, and relationship type

We propose that middle childhood female ambivalent attachment, given the adaptive problem of uncertainty of future investment, is designed to evoke immediate investment from current caregivers, rather than new investment sources. We suggest greater specificity of strategic attachment solutions to adaptive problems that differ by sex, time, and relationship type.