Do men overperceive women's sexual interest?

Substantial evidence comparing men's perceptions of women's sexual intentions with women's own reports of their sexual intentions has shown a systematic pattern of results that has been interpreted as support for the idea that men overestimate women's true sexual intentions. However, because women's true sexual intentions cannot be directly measured, an alternative interpretation of the existing data is that women understate their sexual intentions and that men's assessments of women's intentions are generally accurate. In three studies, we (a) replicated the typical sex difference in sexual-intent ratings, (b) showed that men maintain their ratings of women's sexual intentions even when incentivized to tell the truth, and (c) showed that women believe that other women are understating their sexual intentions in self-report measures. Taken together, these results imply that men might be accurate in perceiving and reporting women's sexual intentions and that men might be managing errors through biased behavior rather than biased beliefs.

The misperception of sexual interest.

In the current study (N = 199), we utilized a speed-meeting methodology to investigate misperceptions of sexual interest. This method allowed us to evaluate the magnitude of men's overperception of women's sexual interest, to examine whether and how women misperceive men's sexual interest, and to assess individual differences in susceptibility to sexual misperception. We found strong support for the prediction that women would underestimate men's sexual interest. Men who were more oriented toward short-term mating strategies or who rated themselves more attractive were more likely to overperceive women's sexual interest. The magnitude of men's overperception of women's sexual interest was predicted by the women's physical attractiveness. We discuss implications of gender differences and within-sex individual differences in susceptibility to sexual misperception.

The costs of rape.

The current study examined costs experienced by victims of completed rape (n=49) and attempted sexual assault (n=91) using quantitative analyses of 13 domains: health, self-esteem, self-perceived attractiveness, self-perceived mate value, family relationships,work life, social life, social reputation, sexual reputation, desire to have sex, frequency of sex, enjoyment of sex, and long-term, committed relationships. Women also provided descriptive accounts of their experiences, and we used these to illustrate the costs in the victims' own words.Compared to victims of an attempted sexual assault, victims of a completed rape reported significantly more negative outcomes in 11 of the 13 domains. The most negatively affected domains were self-esteem, sexual reputation, frequency of sex, desire to have sex, and self-perceived mate value. Although victims of rape experienced more negative effects than victims of attempted sexual assault,both groups of victims reported negative effects in every domain.Discussion focuses on the implications of the differing degrees and patterns of the costs of attempted and completed sexual victimization.

The selfish hero: a study of the individual benefits of self-sacrificial prosocial behavior.

Twenty-four same-sex, three-person groups (a confederate plus two naive participants) completed a "group decision-making study" in which the success of the group depended upon the willingness of one of its members (the confederate) to endure pain and inconvenience. The ordeal that the altruistic confederate endured was judged to be more difficult and costly than the experience of other group members, and the altruists were ultimately awarded more money and accorded higher status. In a second study, 334 undergraduates read a description of the procedures used in Study 1 and made judgments and monetary allocations to the hypothetical people described in the scenario. The concordance of the data in the two studies support a costly signaling, rather than a reciprocal altruism explanation for such "heroic" behavior.

Is self-sacrificial competitive altruism primarily a male activity?

This study explored the basis of self-sacrificial prosocial behavior in small groups. Seventy-eight undergraduates (39M, 39F) filled out a thirty-item personality scale and then participated in a "group problem-solving study" in which the monetary success of a three-person group depended upon one of its members volunteering to endure pain (a cold stressor test) and inconvenience (being soaked in a dunk tank). There were 13 groups consisting of two females and one male, and 13 groups consisting of two males and one female. Across groups, the behavior of the altruist was judged to be more costly, challenging, and important and he/she was liked better, rewarded with more money, and preferred as a future experimental partner. Groups containing two males showed more evidence of competition to become altruists than groups containing two females, and personality traits were more effective predictors of altruistic behavior in males than in females. We conclude that competition between males and "showing off" are key factors in triggering self-sacrificial altruistic behavior.

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 psychology's 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.