#evolutionarypsychology — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #evolutionarypsychology, aggregated by home.social.
-
DATE: September 27, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: People with higher autistic traits tend to avoid positive relationship-maintenance tactics
A recent study suggests that people in the general population who possess higher levels of autistic-like traits tend to avoid positive, affectionate behaviors to maintain their romantic relationships. The research, published in Evolutionary Psychology, indicates that these traits influence relationship dynamics largely through a person’s attachment style rather than broad evolutionary reproductive strategies.
The research was led by Andrzej Łukasik, a PhD with habilitation and head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Rzeszow’s Collegium Medicum in Poland, who aimed to explore how subtle personality traits shape romantic behavior from an evolutionary perspective. The central focus of the study is autistic-like traits, which refer to patterns of social functioning, communication difficulties, and rigid thinking. “Autistic-like traits (ALTs) are personality, social, and cognitive characteristics associated with autism that can also occur, to varying degrees, in the general population,” Łukasik told PsyPost. “They are not considered a disorder.”
To understand how these traits impact relationships, the scientists looked at mate retention tactics. These are behaviors people use to keep a partner and prevent them from leaving. Mate retention is generally divided into what Łukasik described as “benefit-provisioning tactics, such as showing affection, giving compliments or gifts, and offering support, and cost-inflicting tactics, such as inducing jealousy, engaging in controlling behavior, or making threats.” The authors suspected that the way a person tries to keep a partner depends heavily on their attachment style.
Attachment styles describe how people form emotional bonds, generally falling into secure, anxious, or avoidant categories. “People with anxious attachment usually have a strong need for closeness and may react strongly to distance or uncertainty,” Łukasik explained. “In contrast, people with avoidant attachment may feel uncomfortable with emotional closeness and place greater value on independence.” In fact, a 2016 study found that insecure attachment predicts how frequently people use various mate retention behaviors, and a study covered by PsyPost in 2021 indicated that anxious attachment is linked to both positive and negative mate retention strategies.
The researchers also framed their study around life history theory, an evolutionary concept describing how individuals allocate their limited time and energy. In this framework, people adopt varying reproductive strategies. A fast strategy involves high mating effort, characterized by seeking multiple partners and short-term relationships. A slow strategy involves high parental effort, prioritizing stable, long-term investments in a single partner and offspring.
Previous evolutionary theories proposed that autistic-like traits might be an adaptation linked to a slow reproductive strategy. However, because these traits are also associated with insecure attachment, which typically aligns with a fast strategy, the authors designed this study to test how all these factors connect. “Research by Marco Del Giudice and colleagues (2010) has suggested that ALTs may be associated with a slow reproductive strategy,” Łukasik noted. “However, higher levels of ALTs are also linked to insecure attachment styles (avoidant and anxious), which have more often been associated with characteristics of a fast strategy.”
Therefore, the researchers examined whether ALTs might actually predict a fast strategy and whether attachment style moderates that relationship. To map out these connections, the scientists recruited 796 Polish adults. The participants were 52 percent female and had an average age of 36.4 years. Every participant had been in a romantic relationship for at least three months.
The researchers administered a series of established questionnaires. They used the Autism-Spectrum Quotient to measure the degree of autistic-like traits, the Experiences in Close Relationships scale to assess anxious and avoidant attachment, and the Mate Retention Inventory to evaluate the frequency of benefit-provisioning and cost-inflicting behaviors. They also used brief scales to measure mating effort and parental effort. The team then used a statistical technique called structural equation modeling to analyze the complex web of relationships between all these variables at once.
The results suggest that autistic-like traits are notable predictors of insecure attachment. Participants who scored higher on autistic-like traits reported higher levels of both anxious and avoidant attachment styles. This indicates that people with more of these traits often worry about their partners leaving while simultaneously struggling with emotional closeness.
When looking at mate retention, the researchers found that individuals with higher autistic-like traits were less likely to engage in benefit-provisioning tactics. They tended to avoid showering their partners with affection or gifts as a way to maintain the relationship. The initial statistical models suggested that these individuals were also less likely to use cost-inflicting tactics. However, when the scientists controlled for the participants’ ages, they found a positive link between autistic-like traits and cost-inflicting tactics.
Age acted as a masking variable because older individuals naturally tend to use fewer negative tactics. Once age was factored out, the data suggested that people with higher autistic-like traits might actually use cost-inflicting tactics slightly more often.
In terms of evolutionary strategies, autistic-like traits proved to be weak predictors of life history outcomes. “The results did not support the hypothesis that ALTs predict a fast rather than a slow reproductive strategy,” Łukasik said. “ALTs were only weakly related to reproductive strategies.” Instead, attachment styles acted as a bridge between the variables.
Anxious attachment was linked to higher mating effort and lower parental effort, and it predicted the use of both positive and negative mate retention tactics. Avoidant attachment was similarly linked to higher mating effort and lower parental effort, but it predicted a lower use of benefit-provisioning tactics. “Individuals with an anxious attachment style tend to use a mixed partner-retention strategy involving both attraction and distancing, probably due to an overperception of the risk of infidelity,” Łukasik pointed out. “In contrast, individuals with an avoidant attachment style tend to use benefit-provisioning tactics less often, possibly because such tactics allow them to avoid closeness with their partner and maintain distance from their partner.”
Age played a broad role across the entire study. The scientists found that as participants got older, their levels of attachment anxiety decreased. Older participants also reported lower mating effort, higher parental effort, and a decreased use of both types of mate retention tactics. This aligns with the idea that as people age and relationships stabilize, they shift their energy away from securing a mate and toward investing in their existing family.
As with all research, there are a few things to keep in mind. The study relied on cross-sectional data, meaning the researchers measured all variables at a single point in time. This design makes it impossible to determine the true direction of the effects, and one cannot assume that autistic-like traits cause specific attachment styles or relationship behaviors. In addition, the participants self-reported their behaviors, which can introduce bias if people alter their answers to appear more socially acceptable.
The researchers also note that the Autism-Spectrum Quotient might measure elements of social anxiety or general interpersonal difficulty rather than pure autistic traits. This overlap could skew the interpretation of the results. The weak link between autistic-like traits and reproductive strategies also suggests that broad evolutionary models like life history theory might not fully capture the nuances of modern human relationships, pointing to a need for different measurement approaches in future studies.
Ultimately, the findings offer insight into the practical challenges some people face in romance. “These findings may help explain relationship difficulties experienced by individuals with higher levels of autistic-like traits,” Łukasik concluded. “Benefit-provisioning tactics are generally associated with greater relationship satisfaction, whereas cost-inflicting tactics are linked to lower satisfaction and may contribute to difficulties in developing and maintaining stable close relationships.”
The study, “Autistic-Like Traits in Members of the General Population and Mate Retention Tactics: The Mediation of Attachment Styles and Reproductive Strategies,” was authored by Andrzej Łukasik and Agnieszka Łaba-Hornecka.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #AutisticTraits #AttachmentStyles #MateRetention #RomanticRelationships #EvolutionaryPsychology #ALTs #AnxiousAttachment #AvoidantAttachment #PositiveTactics #CostInflictingTactics
-
DATE: September 27, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: People with higher autistic traits tend to avoid positive relationship-maintenance tactics
A recent study suggests that people in the general population who possess higher levels of autistic-like traits tend to avoid positive, affectionate behaviors to maintain their romantic relationships. The research, published in Evolutionary Psychology, indicates that these traits influence relationship dynamics largely through a person’s attachment style rather than broad evolutionary reproductive strategies.
The research was led by Andrzej Łukasik, a PhD with habilitation and head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Rzeszow’s Collegium Medicum in Poland, who aimed to explore how subtle personality traits shape romantic behavior from an evolutionary perspective. The central focus of the study is autistic-like traits, which refer to patterns of social functioning, communication difficulties, and rigid thinking. “Autistic-like traits (ALTs) are personality, social, and cognitive characteristics associated with autism that can also occur, to varying degrees, in the general population,” Łukasik told PsyPost. “They are not considered a disorder.”
To understand how these traits impact relationships, the scientists looked at mate retention tactics. These are behaviors people use to keep a partner and prevent them from leaving. Mate retention is generally divided into what Łukasik described as “benefit-provisioning tactics, such as showing affection, giving compliments or gifts, and offering support, and cost-inflicting tactics, such as inducing jealousy, engaging in controlling behavior, or making threats.” The authors suspected that the way a person tries to keep a partner depends heavily on their attachment style.
Attachment styles describe how people form emotional bonds, generally falling into secure, anxious, or avoidant categories. “People with anxious attachment usually have a strong need for closeness and may react strongly to distance or uncertainty,” Łukasik explained. “In contrast, people with avoidant attachment may feel uncomfortable with emotional closeness and place greater value on independence.” In fact, a 2016 study found that insecure attachment predicts how frequently people use various mate retention behaviors, and a study covered by PsyPost in 2021 indicated that anxious attachment is linked to both positive and negative mate retention strategies.
The researchers also framed their study around life history theory, an evolutionary concept describing how individuals allocate their limited time and energy. In this framework, people adopt varying reproductive strategies. A fast strategy involves high mating effort, characterized by seeking multiple partners and short-term relationships. A slow strategy involves high parental effort, prioritizing stable, long-term investments in a single partner and offspring.
Previous evolutionary theories proposed that autistic-like traits might be an adaptation linked to a slow reproductive strategy. However, because these traits are also associated with insecure attachment, which typically aligns with a fast strategy, the authors designed this study to test how all these factors connect. “Research by Marco Del Giudice and colleagues (2010) has suggested that ALTs may be associated with a slow reproductive strategy,” Łukasik noted. “However, higher levels of ALTs are also linked to insecure attachment styles (avoidant and anxious), which have more often been associated with characteristics of a fast strategy.”
Therefore, the researchers examined whether ALTs might actually predict a fast strategy and whether attachment style moderates that relationship. To map out these connections, the scientists recruited 796 Polish adults. The participants were 52 percent female and had an average age of 36.4 years. Every participant had been in a romantic relationship for at least three months.
The researchers administered a series of established questionnaires. They used the Autism-Spectrum Quotient to measure the degree of autistic-like traits, the Experiences in Close Relationships scale to assess anxious and avoidant attachment, and the Mate Retention Inventory to evaluate the frequency of benefit-provisioning and cost-inflicting behaviors. They also used brief scales to measure mating effort and parental effort. The team then used a statistical technique called structural equation modeling to analyze the complex web of relationships between all these variables at once.
The results suggest that autistic-like traits are notable predictors of insecure attachment. Participants who scored higher on autistic-like traits reported higher levels of both anxious and avoidant attachment styles. This indicates that people with more of these traits often worry about their partners leaving while simultaneously struggling with emotional closeness.
When looking at mate retention, the researchers found that individuals with higher autistic-like traits were less likely to engage in benefit-provisioning tactics. They tended to avoid showering their partners with affection or gifts as a way to maintain the relationship. The initial statistical models suggested that these individuals were also less likely to use cost-inflicting tactics. However, when the scientists controlled for the participants’ ages, they found a positive link between autistic-like traits and cost-inflicting tactics.
Age acted as a masking variable because older individuals naturally tend to use fewer negative tactics. Once age was factored out, the data suggested that people with higher autistic-like traits might actually use cost-inflicting tactics slightly more often.
In terms of evolutionary strategies, autistic-like traits proved to be weak predictors of life history outcomes. “The results did not support the hypothesis that ALTs predict a fast rather than a slow reproductive strategy,” Łukasik said. “ALTs were only weakly related to reproductive strategies.” Instead, attachment styles acted as a bridge between the variables.
Anxious attachment was linked to higher mating effort and lower parental effort, and it predicted the use of both positive and negative mate retention tactics. Avoidant attachment was similarly linked to higher mating effort and lower parental effort, but it predicted a lower use of benefit-provisioning tactics. “Individuals with an anxious attachment style tend to use a mixed partner-retention strategy involving both attraction and distancing, probably due to an overperception of the risk of infidelity,” Łukasik pointed out. “In contrast, individuals with an avoidant attachment style tend to use benefit-provisioning tactics less often, possibly because such tactics allow them to avoid closeness with their partner and maintain distance from their partner.”
Age played a broad role across the entire study. The scientists found that as participants got older, their levels of attachment anxiety decreased. Older participants also reported lower mating effort, higher parental effort, and a decreased use of both types of mate retention tactics. This aligns with the idea that as people age and relationships stabilize, they shift their energy away from securing a mate and toward investing in their existing family.
As with all research, there are a few things to keep in mind. The study relied on cross-sectional data, meaning the researchers measured all variables at a single point in time. This design makes it impossible to determine the true direction of the effects, and one cannot assume that autistic-like traits cause specific attachment styles or relationship behaviors. In addition, the participants self-reported their behaviors, which can introduce bias if people alter their answers to appear more socially acceptable.
The researchers also note that the Autism-Spectrum Quotient might measure elements of social anxiety or general interpersonal difficulty rather than pure autistic traits. This overlap could skew the interpretation of the results. The weak link between autistic-like traits and reproductive strategies also suggests that broad evolutionary models like life history theory might not fully capture the nuances of modern human relationships, pointing to a need for different measurement approaches in future studies.
Ultimately, the findings offer insight into the practical challenges some people face in romance. “These findings may help explain relationship difficulties experienced by individuals with higher levels of autistic-like traits,” Łukasik concluded. “Benefit-provisioning tactics are generally associated with greater relationship satisfaction, whereas cost-inflicting tactics are linked to lower satisfaction and may contribute to difficulties in developing and maintaining stable close relationships.”
The study, “Autistic-Like Traits in Members of the General Population and Mate Retention Tactics: The Mediation of Attachment Styles and Reproductive Strategies,” was authored by Andrzej Łukasik and Agnieszka Łaba-Hornecka.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #AutisticTraits #AttachmentStyles #MateRetention #RomanticRelationships #EvolutionaryPsychology #ALTs #AnxiousAttachment #AvoidantAttachment #PositiveTactics #CostInflictingTactics
-
DATE: September 27, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: People with higher autistic traits tend to avoid positive relationship-maintenance tactics
A recent study suggests that people in the general population who possess higher levels of autistic-like traits tend to avoid positive, affectionate behaviors to maintain their romantic relationships. The research, published in Evolutionary Psychology, indicates that these traits influence relationship dynamics largely through a person’s attachment style rather than broad evolutionary reproductive strategies.
The research was led by Andrzej Łukasik, a PhD with habilitation and head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Rzeszow’s Collegium Medicum in Poland, who aimed to explore how subtle personality traits shape romantic behavior from an evolutionary perspective. The central focus of the study is autistic-like traits, which refer to patterns of social functioning, communication difficulties, and rigid thinking. “Autistic-like traits (ALTs) are personality, social, and cognitive characteristics associated with autism that can also occur, to varying degrees, in the general population,” Łukasik told PsyPost. “They are not considered a disorder.”
To understand how these traits impact relationships, the scientists looked at mate retention tactics. These are behaviors people use to keep a partner and prevent them from leaving. Mate retention is generally divided into what Łukasik described as “benefit-provisioning tactics, such as showing affection, giving compliments or gifts, and offering support, and cost-inflicting tactics, such as inducing jealousy, engaging in controlling behavior, or making threats.” The authors suspected that the way a person tries to keep a partner depends heavily on their attachment style.
Attachment styles describe how people form emotional bonds, generally falling into secure, anxious, or avoidant categories. “People with anxious attachment usually have a strong need for closeness and may react strongly to distance or uncertainty,” Łukasik explained. “In contrast, people with avoidant attachment may feel uncomfortable with emotional closeness and place greater value on independence.” In fact, a 2016 study found that insecure attachment predicts how frequently people use various mate retention behaviors, and a study covered by PsyPost in 2021 indicated that anxious attachment is linked to both positive and negative mate retention strategies.
The researchers also framed their study around life history theory, an evolutionary concept describing how individuals allocate their limited time and energy. In this framework, people adopt varying reproductive strategies. A fast strategy involves high mating effort, characterized by seeking multiple partners and short-term relationships. A slow strategy involves high parental effort, prioritizing stable, long-term investments in a single partner and offspring.
Previous evolutionary theories proposed that autistic-like traits might be an adaptation linked to a slow reproductive strategy. However, because these traits are also associated with insecure attachment, which typically aligns with a fast strategy, the authors designed this study to test how all these factors connect. “Research by Marco Del Giudice and colleagues (2010) has suggested that ALTs may be associated with a slow reproductive strategy,” Łukasik noted. “However, higher levels of ALTs are also linked to insecure attachment styles (avoidant and anxious), which have more often been associated with characteristics of a fast strategy.”
Therefore, the researchers examined whether ALTs might actually predict a fast strategy and whether attachment style moderates that relationship. To map out these connections, the scientists recruited 796 Polish adults. The participants were 52 percent female and had an average age of 36.4 years. Every participant had been in a romantic relationship for at least three months.
The researchers administered a series of established questionnaires. They used the Autism-Spectrum Quotient to measure the degree of autistic-like traits, the Experiences in Close Relationships scale to assess anxious and avoidant attachment, and the Mate Retention Inventory to evaluate the frequency of benefit-provisioning and cost-inflicting behaviors. They also used brief scales to measure mating effort and parental effort. The team then used a statistical technique called structural equation modeling to analyze the complex web of relationships between all these variables at once.
The results suggest that autistic-like traits are notable predictors of insecure attachment. Participants who scored higher on autistic-like traits reported higher levels of both anxious and avoidant attachment styles. This indicates that people with more of these traits often worry about their partners leaving while simultaneously struggling with emotional closeness.
When looking at mate retention, the researchers found that individuals with higher autistic-like traits were less likely to engage in benefit-provisioning tactics. They tended to avoid showering their partners with affection or gifts as a way to maintain the relationship. The initial statistical models suggested that these individuals were also less likely to use cost-inflicting tactics. However, when the scientists controlled for the participants’ ages, they found a positive link between autistic-like traits and cost-inflicting tactics.
Age acted as a masking variable because older individuals naturally tend to use fewer negative tactics. Once age was factored out, the data suggested that people with higher autistic-like traits might actually use cost-inflicting tactics slightly more often.
In terms of evolutionary strategies, autistic-like traits proved to be weak predictors of life history outcomes. “The results did not support the hypothesis that ALTs predict a fast rather than a slow reproductive strategy,” Łukasik said. “ALTs were only weakly related to reproductive strategies.” Instead, attachment styles acted as a bridge between the variables.
Anxious attachment was linked to higher mating effort and lower parental effort, and it predicted the use of both positive and negative mate retention tactics. Avoidant attachment was similarly linked to higher mating effort and lower parental effort, but it predicted a lower use of benefit-provisioning tactics. “Individuals with an anxious attachment style tend to use a mixed partner-retention strategy involving both attraction and distancing, probably due to an overperception of the risk of infidelity,” Łukasik pointed out. “In contrast, individuals with an avoidant attachment style tend to use benefit-provisioning tactics less often, possibly because such tactics allow them to avoid closeness with their partner and maintain distance from their partner.”
Age played a broad role across the entire study. The scientists found that as participants got older, their levels of attachment anxiety decreased. Older participants also reported lower mating effort, higher parental effort, and a decreased use of both types of mate retention tactics. This aligns with the idea that as people age and relationships stabilize, they shift their energy away from securing a mate and toward investing in their existing family.
As with all research, there are a few things to keep in mind. The study relied on cross-sectional data, meaning the researchers measured all variables at a single point in time. This design makes it impossible to determine the true direction of the effects, and one cannot assume that autistic-like traits cause specific attachment styles or relationship behaviors. In addition, the participants self-reported their behaviors, which can introduce bias if people alter their answers to appear more socially acceptable.
The researchers also note that the Autism-Spectrum Quotient might measure elements of social anxiety or general interpersonal difficulty rather than pure autistic traits. This overlap could skew the interpretation of the results. The weak link between autistic-like traits and reproductive strategies also suggests that broad evolutionary models like life history theory might not fully capture the nuances of modern human relationships, pointing to a need for different measurement approaches in future studies.
Ultimately, the findings offer insight into the practical challenges some people face in romance. “These findings may help explain relationship difficulties experienced by individuals with higher levels of autistic-like traits,” Łukasik concluded. “Benefit-provisioning tactics are generally associated with greater relationship satisfaction, whereas cost-inflicting tactics are linked to lower satisfaction and may contribute to difficulties in developing and maintaining stable close relationships.”
The study, “Autistic-Like Traits in Members of the General Population and Mate Retention Tactics: The Mediation of Attachment Styles and Reproductive Strategies,” was authored by Andrzej Łukasik and Agnieszka Łaba-Hornecka.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #AutisticTraits #AttachmentStyles #MateRetention #RomanticRelationships #EvolutionaryPsychology #ALTs #AnxiousAttachment #AvoidantAttachment #PositiveTactics #CostInflictingTactics
-
DATE: September 25, 2026 at 06:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Why sex differences in throwing cannot be explained by socialization alone
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-sex-differences-in-throwing-cannot-be-explained-by-socialization-alone/
Sex differences in overhand throwing cannot be explained by socialization alone, according to a commentary published in Evolutionary Psychological Science that argues biological predispositions and experience work together across development.
Scientists generally reject a simple choice between nature and nurture. Research in evolutionary biology, behavioral genetics, and psychology instead treats behavior as the product of ongoing interactions among genes, hormones, development, learning, and the social environment. Nevertheless, explanations attributing differences between women and men entirely to socialization remain influential in some areas of sex and gender research.
Robert O. Deaner and Michael P. Lombardo examine this tension through a debate about the pronounced sex difference in overhand throwing. This difference is exceptionally large—reaching roughly two standard deviations or more by adulthood, a gap comparable in magnitude to the adult sex difference in height. Their commentary responds to developmental biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling’s critique of their earlier proposal that throwing ability partly reflects adaptations shaped by stronger ancestral selection on males.
Fausto-Sterling argues that differences in children’s early social experiences and opportunities for ball play can account for the development of the throwing gap. Deaner and Lombardo contend that this explanation overlooks relevant evolutionary, anatomical, hormonal, cross-cultural, and performance evidence.
The authors adopt an interactionist framework in which evolved predispositions and environmental influences are complementary rather than competing explanations. Their central hypothesis is that ancestral males experienced stronger selection for forceful and accurate overhand throwing, particularly because males were more frequently involved in violent conflict and warfare.
Hunting and confrontational scavenging (stealing kills from other predators) may have provided additional selection pressures. Over many generations, these recurring demands could have favored anatomical, physiological, and behavioral traits that support throwing performance.
These evolved differences would not need to be fully formed at birth. Like walking or language, throwing develops through the interaction of biological capacities with experience, practice, and social input. Children may receive different levels of encouragement to play with balls, while preexisting differences in interests or physical capacities may also influence the activities they seek out and the responses they receive from caregivers. Socialization can therefore cultivate or amplify an evolved predisposition without having created it entirely.
The authors first dispute the claim that their evolutionary account depends principally on the traditional image of “Man the Hunter.” They say their primary proposed selection pressure is conflict between ancestral groups, especially warfare, with hunting serving as a complementary influence. They also argue that the anthropological evidence continues to show a substantial sexual division of hunting labor. Although women hunt in some societies, quantitative data indicate that men generally hunt more often, pursue larger animals, and obtain considerably more meat. In the authors’ view, such patterns make it plausible that males faced stronger selection for throwing-related abilities.
The authors next argue that the evidence extends well beyond childhood throwing studies. They point to an unusually large performance difference between male and female javelin throwers; differences in throwing accuracy and targeting; research connecting prenatal androgen exposure (levels of male sex hormones experienced in the womb) with male-typical propulsive behavior; and anatomical differences in the shoulder and arm that generally favor male throwing performance.
Large differences have also been observed among children in societies where both sexes receive substantial throwing opportunities or where neither receives much practice, while training improves girls’ performance without consistently eliminating the gap.
Finally, Deaner and Lombardo maintain that Fausto-Sterling’s observations of ten infants (five boys and five girls) cannot establish that maternal interaction caused the children’s differing engagement with balls, particularly because the study did not examine the mature, forceful overhand throw addressed by their hypothesis. More broadly, they argue that presenting developmental experience as an alternative to evolution misunderstand evolutionary theory: adaptations must emerge through developmental processes, and evidence that social experience contributes to a trait does not demonstrate that experience fully accounts for it.
The authors acknowledge that some lines of evidence supporting their account, including evidence concerning targeting, come from only one or a few studies. They also note that available quantitative hunting data may not represent all foraging societies.
By applying an interactionist framework to overhand throwing, the commentary argues that a complete explanation of behavioral sex differences must examine how biological predispositions and social experience jointly shape development.
The paper, “Sex Differences in Overhand Throwing are Completely Due to Socialization: A Blank Slate ‘Hypothesis’ Unconstrained by Evidence,” was authored by Robert O. Deaner and Michael P. Lombardo.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-sex-differences-in-throwing-cannot-be-explained-by-socialization-alone/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #SexDifferences #OverhandThrowing #EvolutionaryPsychology #BiologyMeetsEnvironment #NatureNurtureInteraction #EvolutionaryBiology #AnatomicalDifferences #PrenatalAndrogens #ThrowingPerformance #GenderDifferences
-
DATE: September 25, 2026 at 06:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Why sex differences in throwing cannot be explained by socialization alone
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-sex-differences-in-throwing-cannot-be-explained-by-socialization-alone/
Sex differences in overhand throwing cannot be explained by socialization alone, according to a commentary published in Evolutionary Psychological Science that argues biological predispositions and experience work together across development.
Scientists generally reject a simple choice between nature and nurture. Research in evolutionary biology, behavioral genetics, and psychology instead treats behavior as the product of ongoing interactions among genes, hormones, development, learning, and the social environment. Nevertheless, explanations attributing differences between women and men entirely to socialization remain influential in some areas of sex and gender research.
Robert O. Deaner and Michael P. Lombardo examine this tension through a debate about the pronounced sex difference in overhand throwing. This difference is exceptionally large—reaching roughly two standard deviations or more by adulthood, a gap comparable in magnitude to the adult sex difference in height. Their commentary responds to developmental biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling’s critique of their earlier proposal that throwing ability partly reflects adaptations shaped by stronger ancestral selection on males.
Fausto-Sterling argues that differences in children’s early social experiences and opportunities for ball play can account for the development of the throwing gap. Deaner and Lombardo contend that this explanation overlooks relevant evolutionary, anatomical, hormonal, cross-cultural, and performance evidence.
The authors adopt an interactionist framework in which evolved predispositions and environmental influences are complementary rather than competing explanations. Their central hypothesis is that ancestral males experienced stronger selection for forceful and accurate overhand throwing, particularly because males were more frequently involved in violent conflict and warfare.
Hunting and confrontational scavenging (stealing kills from other predators) may have provided additional selection pressures. Over many generations, these recurring demands could have favored anatomical, physiological, and behavioral traits that support throwing performance.
These evolved differences would not need to be fully formed at birth. Like walking or language, throwing develops through the interaction of biological capacities with experience, practice, and social input. Children may receive different levels of encouragement to play with balls, while preexisting differences in interests or physical capacities may also influence the activities they seek out and the responses they receive from caregivers. Socialization can therefore cultivate or amplify an evolved predisposition without having created it entirely.
The authors first dispute the claim that their evolutionary account depends principally on the traditional image of “Man the Hunter.” They say their primary proposed selection pressure is conflict between ancestral groups, especially warfare, with hunting serving as a complementary influence. They also argue that the anthropological evidence continues to show a substantial sexual division of hunting labor. Although women hunt in some societies, quantitative data indicate that men generally hunt more often, pursue larger animals, and obtain considerably more meat. In the authors’ view, such patterns make it plausible that males faced stronger selection for throwing-related abilities.
The authors next argue that the evidence extends well beyond childhood throwing studies. They point to an unusually large performance difference between male and female javelin throwers; differences in throwing accuracy and targeting; research connecting prenatal androgen exposure (levels of male sex hormones experienced in the womb) with male-typical propulsive behavior; and anatomical differences in the shoulder and arm that generally favor male throwing performance.
Large differences have also been observed among children in societies where both sexes receive substantial throwing opportunities or where neither receives much practice, while training improves girls’ performance without consistently eliminating the gap.
Finally, Deaner and Lombardo maintain that Fausto-Sterling’s observations of ten infants (five boys and five girls) cannot establish that maternal interaction caused the children’s differing engagement with balls, particularly because the study did not examine the mature, forceful overhand throw addressed by their hypothesis. More broadly, they argue that presenting developmental experience as an alternative to evolution misunderstand evolutionary theory: adaptations must emerge through developmental processes, and evidence that social experience contributes to a trait does not demonstrate that experience fully accounts for it.
The authors acknowledge that some lines of evidence supporting their account, including evidence concerning targeting, come from only one or a few studies. They also note that available quantitative hunting data may not represent all foraging societies.
By applying an interactionist framework to overhand throwing, the commentary argues that a complete explanation of behavioral sex differences must examine how biological predispositions and social experience jointly shape development.
The paper, “Sex Differences in Overhand Throwing are Completely Due to Socialization: A Blank Slate ‘Hypothesis’ Unconstrained by Evidence,” was authored by Robert O. Deaner and Michael P. Lombardo.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-sex-differences-in-throwing-cannot-be-explained-by-socialization-alone/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #SexDifferences #OverhandThrowing #EvolutionaryPsychology #BiologyMeetsEnvironment #NatureNurtureInteraction #EvolutionaryBiology #AnatomicalDifferences #PrenatalAndrogens #ThrowingPerformance #GenderDifferences
-
DATE: September 25, 2026 at 06:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Why sex differences in throwing cannot be explained by socialization alone
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-sex-differences-in-throwing-cannot-be-explained-by-socialization-alone/
Sex differences in overhand throwing cannot be explained by socialization alone, according to a commentary published in Evolutionary Psychological Science that argues biological predispositions and experience work together across development.
Scientists generally reject a simple choice between nature and nurture. Research in evolutionary biology, behavioral genetics, and psychology instead treats behavior as the product of ongoing interactions among genes, hormones, development, learning, and the social environment. Nevertheless, explanations attributing differences between women and men entirely to socialization remain influential in some areas of sex and gender research.
Robert O. Deaner and Michael P. Lombardo examine this tension through a debate about the pronounced sex difference in overhand throwing. This difference is exceptionally large—reaching roughly two standard deviations or more by adulthood, a gap comparable in magnitude to the adult sex difference in height. Their commentary responds to developmental biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling’s critique of their earlier proposal that throwing ability partly reflects adaptations shaped by stronger ancestral selection on males.
Fausto-Sterling argues that differences in children’s early social experiences and opportunities for ball play can account for the development of the throwing gap. Deaner and Lombardo contend that this explanation overlooks relevant evolutionary, anatomical, hormonal, cross-cultural, and performance evidence.
The authors adopt an interactionist framework in which evolved predispositions and environmental influences are complementary rather than competing explanations. Their central hypothesis is that ancestral males experienced stronger selection for forceful and accurate overhand throwing, particularly because males were more frequently involved in violent conflict and warfare.
Hunting and confrontational scavenging (stealing kills from other predators) may have provided additional selection pressures. Over many generations, these recurring demands could have favored anatomical, physiological, and behavioral traits that support throwing performance.
These evolved differences would not need to be fully formed at birth. Like walking or language, throwing develops through the interaction of biological capacities with experience, practice, and social input. Children may receive different levels of encouragement to play with balls, while preexisting differences in interests or physical capacities may also influence the activities they seek out and the responses they receive from caregivers. Socialization can therefore cultivate or amplify an evolved predisposition without having created it entirely.
The authors first dispute the claim that their evolutionary account depends principally on the traditional image of “Man the Hunter.” They say their primary proposed selection pressure is conflict between ancestral groups, especially warfare, with hunting serving as a complementary influence. They also argue that the anthropological evidence continues to show a substantial sexual division of hunting labor. Although women hunt in some societies, quantitative data indicate that men generally hunt more often, pursue larger animals, and obtain considerably more meat. In the authors’ view, such patterns make it plausible that males faced stronger selection for throwing-related abilities.
The authors next argue that the evidence extends well beyond childhood throwing studies. They point to an unusually large performance difference between male and female javelin throwers; differences in throwing accuracy and targeting; research connecting prenatal androgen exposure (levels of male sex hormones experienced in the womb) with male-typical propulsive behavior; and anatomical differences in the shoulder and arm that generally favor male throwing performance.
Large differences have also been observed among children in societies where both sexes receive substantial throwing opportunities or where neither receives much practice, while training improves girls’ performance without consistently eliminating the gap.
Finally, Deaner and Lombardo maintain that Fausto-Sterling’s observations of ten infants (five boys and five girls) cannot establish that maternal interaction caused the children’s differing engagement with balls, particularly because the study did not examine the mature, forceful overhand throw addressed by their hypothesis. More broadly, they argue that presenting developmental experience as an alternative to evolution misunderstand evolutionary theory: adaptations must emerge through developmental processes, and evidence that social experience contributes to a trait does not demonstrate that experience fully accounts for it.
The authors acknowledge that some lines of evidence supporting their account, including evidence concerning targeting, come from only one or a few studies. They also note that available quantitative hunting data may not represent all foraging societies.
By applying an interactionist framework to overhand throwing, the commentary argues that a complete explanation of behavioral sex differences must examine how biological predispositions and social experience jointly shape development.
The paper, “Sex Differences in Overhand Throwing are Completely Due to Socialization: A Blank Slate ‘Hypothesis’ Unconstrained by Evidence,” was authored by Robert O. Deaner and Michael P. Lombardo.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-sex-differences-in-throwing-cannot-be-explained-by-socialization-alone/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #SexDifferences #OverhandThrowing #EvolutionaryPsychology #BiologyMeetsEnvironment #NatureNurtureInteraction #EvolutionaryBiology #AnatomicalDifferences #PrenatalAndrogens #ThrowingPerformance #GenderDifferences