John Archer

Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression

I 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.

Sex and gender

When the current wave of feminism began to break 25 years ago few people anticipated 1 of its notable effects: the revitalization of academic disciplines as diverse as literature history biology and psychology. In the arts womens neglected contributions have been discovered and displayed. Womens role in everything from the family to religion to the national economy has been rediscovered. Sex differences in intelligence aggressiveness and sociability have been debated; and in the social-personality subfield sexuality and what used to be called masculinity-femininity have been reconceptualized. The results of the feminist challenge although not always pleasant for scholars who enjoyed the prefeminist status quo include controversy rejuvenation and new directions for research. This volume contains 12 papers that offer a close look at the intellectual action including an occasional peek backstage where the struggle with ideas becomes more personal and less tidy. The 1st paper advocates a sociobiological approach to some of the sex differences documented by personality and social psychologists. Chapters 2 and 3 illustrate the social constructionists approach. Chapter 2 reviews the ways in which masculinity and femininity have been defined and measured by psychologists over the decades. Chapter 3 shows how human sexuality has become the exclusive province of medical professionals. Chapter 4 summarizes recent research on the effects on men of watching sexually explicit and violent films. Chapter 5 summarizes several studies of the ways in which men and women pay themselves and others. Chapters 6 and 7 review the large literature on sex differences in verbal and nonverbal communication. Chapter 8 provides an overview of womens ways of knowing. Gender differences in emotionality is the topic of chapter 9. Chapter 10 discusses kinds of schema theories: enlightenment versus romantic. Chapter 11 presents data from several studies comparing gender stereotypes and gender-related preferences for toys and activities. Chapter 12 presents pioneering ideas and research on the nature of parents beliefs and values concerning the gender socialization of children. These chapters illustrate the types of contributions that feminism has made to the social sciences.

Can evolutionary principles explain patterns of family violence

The articles aim is to evaluate the application of the evolutionary principles of kin selection, reproductive value, and resource holding power to the understanding of family violence. The principles are described in relation to specific predictions and the mechanisms underlying these. Predictions are evaluated for physical violence perpetrated by (a) parents to unrelated children, (b) parents to genetic offspring, and (c) offspring to parents and between (d) siblings and (e) sexual partners. Precise figures for risks have been calculated where possible. The major conclusions are that most of the evidence is consistent with evolutionary predictions derived from kin selection and reproductive value: There were (a) higher rates of violence to stepchildren, (b) a decline in violence with the age of offspring, and (c) an increase in violence with parental age, while (d) violence between siblings was generally at a low level and concerned resource disputes. The issue of distinguishing evolutionary from alternative explanations is addressed throughout and is problematic for predictions derived from reproductive value. The main evolutionary explanation for male partner violence, mate guarding as a result of paternity uncertainty, cannot explain Western studies where sex differences in control and violence between partners were absent, although other aspects of male partner violence are consistent with it, and it may explain sex differences in traditional cultures. Recurrent problems in evaluating the evidence were to control for possible confounds and thus to distinguish evolutionary from alternative explanations. Suggestions are outlined to address this and other issues arising from the review.

Derivation and assessment of a hypermasculine values questionnaire

Four studies are reported on the derivation and assessment of a hypermasculinity scale. In Study 1, a questionnaire measure of hypermasculine values was derived from an initial 122 items, rated on a seven-point scale by 600 men from eight categories, based on occupation or sport interest. Factor analysis and item reduction produced 26- and 16- item scales (Hypermasculine Values Questionnaire, HVQ and Short Hypermasculine Values Questionnaire) with high internal consistencies. There were substantial differences between categories, consistent with predictions based on their gender-stereotypic connotations. Study 2 involved the scales being administered to another similarly composed sample: again high internal consistency and unidimensionality (in a confirmatory factor analysis) were found, and a similar association with category membership. Test-retest reliability was high. In Study 3, the concurrent and discriminative validity of the HVQ was studied, by comparing it with an existing measure of hypermasculinity, male role norms, attitudes to womens rights, gender-related traits, and trait aggression. Associations were found with other gender scales, and there was a moderate association with trait physical aggression. The range of associations reflected the items on the scale, which involve toughness, the need to avoid femininity, and control of womens sexuality, themes familiar from ethnographic accounts of masculinity. Study 4 showed that the HVQ was associated with hostile but not benevolent sexism, and replicated its association with trait aggression.

Origins of Modern Ideas on Love and Loss: Contrasting Forerunners of Attachment Theory

In this article we examine some origins of John Bowlbys attachment theory, a highly influential scientific approach to love and loss in contemporary society. Although some potential influences have been well-documented, others have either received no recognition or have failed to have an impact. We focus specifically on three of Bowlbys predecessors, exploring how these were differentially influential on his work. The first of these, Charles Darwin, was amply endorsed by Bowlby, both in terms of the adaptive background to his theory and more specifically in relation to Darwins study of the emotions associated with grief. The second, Alexander Shand, was recognized as important but is cited little and omitted from the central issue of the resolution of grief. The third, Bertrand Russell, formulated ideas on attachment and separation before Bowlby, and possibly contributed to the intellectual forces that influenced him too. To our knowledge, Russells work was not cited by Bowlby, despite the fact that it contained the seeds of many of Bowlbys ideas on attachment. It remains unclear whether this was because he had not read Russell or through omission; there is no definitive evidence either way. Tracing these historical origins illustrates how theory development involves a process of integration and selection, how even radical theories are rooted in previous scholarship, and how it can take decades for inspiring ideas to develop into full-blown, well-tested, theories.

Looking back and looking ahead

There will be challenges ahead: most notably that we are operating with significantly fewer state dollars than four years ago. But Fresno State continues to have a strong appeal throughout the state of California. A record number of first-time freshman applications were received for fall 2013 –17,294. This is a 10% increase over last year. Our transfer student applicant pool experienced a whopping 26% increase over last year. And the 6,735 upper division transfer student applications also set a school record.