13 found
Sort by:
  1. Steven W. Gangestad (2011). Understanding Self-Deception Demands a Co-Evolutionary Framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (1):23-24.
    The foundational theme of the target article is that processes of self-deception occur in a functional context: a social one through which self-deceptive processes enhance fitness by affecting an actor's performances. One essential component of this context not addressed explicitly is that audiences should have been selected to resist, where possible, enhancements falsely bolstered by self-deception. Theoretical implications follow.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad, Geoffrey F. Miller, Martie G. Haselton, Randy Thornhill & Michael C. Neale (2008). Sex Differences in Detecting Sexual Infidelity. Human Nature 19 (4):347-373.
    Despite the importance of extrapair copulation (EPC) in human evolution, almost nothing is known about the design features of EPC detection mechanisms. We tested for sex differences in EPC inference-making mechanisms in a sample of 203 young couples. Men made more accurate inferences (φmen = 0.66, φwomen = 0.46), and the ratio of positive errors to negative errors was higher for men than for women (1.22 vs. 0.18). Since some may have been reluctant to admit EPC behavior, we modeled how (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Joshua M. Tybur, Geoffrey F. Miller & Steven W. Gangestad (2007). Testing the Controversy. Human Nature 18 (4):313-328.
    Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Steven W. Gangestad & Ronald A. Yeo (2006). Mutations, Developmental Instability, and the Red Queen. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):412-413.
    We address two points. First, one must explain how different, rare mutations ultimately lead to common psychopathological conditions. The developmental instability model offers one solution. Second, Keller & Miller (K&M) perhaps miss the major processes other than variation fueled by rare deleterious mutations that account for interesting genetic variation in psychopathology, particularly when single alleles have non-negligible effects: Red Queen processes. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism, Exaptationism, and Evolutionary Behavioral Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):534-547.
    In our target article, we discussed the standards of evidence that could be used to identify adaptations, and argued that building an empirical case that certain features of a trait are best explained by exaptation, spandrel, or constraint requires the consideration, testing, and rejection of adaptationist hypotheses. We are grateful to the 31 commentators for their thoughtful insights. They raised important issues, including the meaning of “exaptation”; whether Gould and Lewontin's critique of adaptationism was primarily epistemological or ontological; the necessity, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism – How to Carry Out an Exaptationist Program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):489-504.
    1 Adaptationism is a research strategy that seeks to identify adaptations and the specific selective forces that drove their evolution in past environments. Since the mid-1970s, paleontologist Stephen J. Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin have been critical of adaptationism, especially as applied toward understanding human behavior and cognition. Perhaps the most prominent criticism they made was that adaptationist explanations were analogous to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories (outlandish explanations for questions such as how the elephant got its trunk). Since storytelling (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Steven W. Gangestad & Jeffry A. Simpson (2000). The Evolution of Human Mating: Trade-Offs and Strategic Pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):573-587.
    During human evolutionary history, there were “trade-offs” between expending time and energy on child-rearing and mating, so both men and women evolved conditional mating strategies guided by cues signaling the circumstances. Many short-term matings might be successful for some men; others might try to find and keep a single mate, investing their effort in rearing her offspring. Recent evidence suggests that men with features signaling genetic benefits to offspring should be preferred by women as short-term mates, but there are trade-offs (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Steven W. Gangestad & Jeffry A. Simpson (2000). Trade-Offs, the Allocation of Reproductive Effort, and the Evolutionary Psychology of Human Mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):624-636.
    This response reinforces several major themes in our target article: (a) the importance of sex-specific, within-sex variation in mating tactics; (b) the relevance of optimality thinking to understanding that variation; (c) the significance of special design for reconstructing evolutionary history; (d) the replicated findings that women's mating preferences vary across their menstrual cycle in ways revealing special design; and (e) the importance of applying market phenomena to understand the complex dynamics of mating. We also elaborate on three points: (1) Men (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Randy Thornhill & Steven W. Gangestad (1999). Facial Attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3 (12):452-460.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Steven W. Gangestad & Ronald A. Yeo (1997). Behavioral Genetic Variation, Adaptation and Maladaptation: An Evolutionary Perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (3):103-108.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Steven W. Gangestad (1993). Sexual Selection and Physical Attractiveness. Human Nature 4 (3):205-235.
    Sexual selection processes have received much attention in recent years, attention reflected in interest in human mate preferences. Among these mate preferences are preferences for physical attractiveness. Preferences in and of themselves, however, do not fully explain the nature of the relationships that individuals attain. A tacit negotiation process underlies relationship formation and maintenance. The notion that preferences for physical attractiveness evolved under parasite-driven “good genes” sexual selection leads to predictions about the nature of trade-offs that individuals make between mates’ (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Randy Thornhill & Steven W. Gangestad (1993). Human Facial Beauty. Human Nature 4 (3):237-269.
    It is hypothesized that human faces judged to be attractive by people possess two features—averageness and symmetry—that promoted adaptive mate selection in human evolutionary history by way of production of offspring with parasite resistance. Facial composites made by combining individual faces are judged to be attractive, and more attractive than the majority of individual faces. The composites possess both symmetry and averageness of features. Facial averageness may reflect high individual protein heterozygosity and thus an array of proteins to which parasites (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Steven W. Gangestad (1989). Uncompelling Theory, Uncompelling Data. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (3):525.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation