人类“性交往”的进化

性交往是人类繁衍出现差异的进化“引擎”。现代人继承了祖先成功繁衍后代的性交往策略。这些策略涵盖长期守诺的性交往（如婚姻）、短期性交往（如短暂的外遇）、婚姻外的性交往（如不忠）、私通他人配偶（引诱别人的配偶）以及配偶维持（与单一配偶性交往）等。两性在性交往过程中面临不同的适应问题,性交往问题的进化机制存在极大的性别差异。配偶偏好不同、短期性交往的愿望不同以及性嫉妒的诱因不同等都是性交往具有性别差异的表现。很多实证研究都证实了性交往策略的存在,人类性交往研究是进化心理学研究中较为成熟的一个研究领域     

朴素物理观和朴素心理观--进化心理学视角

人类在进化过程中解决生存与繁衍问题需要适应物理环境和社会环境。进化心理学认为人类适应物理环境与社会环境的心理机制分别称为朴素物理观和朴素心理观。文章首先阐述了朴素物理观和朴素心理观的有关内容,并指出两性差异的一个重要方面在于移情和系统化的不同组合,同时对其进化意义做了分析。     

早期经验对繁衍策略形成与发展的影响

很多发展心理学家探讨了早期经验与心理行为发展的关系,但这些发展心理学家较少以进化理论为指导来探讨不同发展阶段的心理行为特点。比如,配偶选择、性交往与父母教养等成果颇丰的研究领域均缺少以进化理论为基础的理论解释。与主流的发展心理学研究不同,Draper和Harpending (1982),Ellis (2004),Chisholm (1996) 和Belsky等(1991)以进化理论为基础探讨了早期经验与繁衍策略对儿童心理行为发展的影响。进化观点认为儿童在家庭中获得的早期经验会影响身体发育与未来的繁衍策略。Ellis（2004）已经证实女性青春期确实与早期家庭经验有关     

性别发展的生物学取向研究述评

当前解释性别发展的理论主要有三种取向：生物学取向、社会化取向、认知取向。近年来,生物学取向日益受到关注并得到认可和接受。解释性别发展的生物学取向研究主要分为两种视角,即进化心理学和进化发展心理学、跨物种比较等远端进化解释,以及行为遗传学研究、染色体异常研究、荷尔蒙研究、大脑结构和功能研究等近端解释。本文总结阐述了这些生物学因素对性别发展的具体影响,并指出了进化心理学研究、行为遗传学研究、荷尔蒙研究、大脑结构和功能的脑成像研究在研究内容、研究方法与技术方面存在的问题,并据此展望未来研究的前景。     

进化心理学两性配偶选择及相关问题差异的研究述评

两性的择偶选择问题是人类自诞生以来面临的最重要的问题之一,进化心理学的研究发现,人类两性在配偶选择方面的策略和心理截然不同,都会运用不同的配偶保持策略使自己和对方获益,最后本文讨论了进化心理学对于当代西方心理学研究的积极影响和研究的不足之处,说明了进化心理学研究的意义及局限。     

择偶策略的影响因素

进化心理学旨在以进化的观点,如适应、自然选择,来解释人类的心理和行为,是当前时兴的一门科学。择偶对于人类生存繁衍的重要作用不容忽视,为目前进化心理学的研究热点。本文集中探讨择偶的相关影响因素,包括择偶标准在异性、不等收入人群中的差异,时间、早期经验及择偶自感价值、文化等对择偶策略的影响。     

进化心理学与生态心理学的整合：理解适宜可用性

进化心理学源自达尔文进化论,以分析心理机能及起源为主要研究目的。同样,生态心理学在Brunswik(1956)和Gibson(1979)开创引领下,探讨了有机体的知觉、判断、行为等因素在环境适应中的作用。尽管进化心理学和生态心理学都具有生物机能主义倾向,但过去研究较少探讨二者联系。该文引入适宜可用性观点来整合进化心理学和生态心理学的理论与实证研究。适宜可用性的观点认为,生存与繁衍问题中的代价与利益分析有助于特定种群的动物采取趋近或回避行为来保证潜在适宜性。适宜可用性的观点源自进化生物学中的知觉理论,它解决了认识论中许多传统问题,也整合了进化心理学和生态心理学的实验研究成果。适宜可用性的观点为新世纪的感觉、知觉、认知、情绪和决策的研究提供了新的理论基础     

冲突适应效应研究述评

冲突适应效应指在一致性任务的试次序列中, 被试在前一试次中经历冲突后会使其在当前试次中更好的解决冲突。目前对于该效应有冲突监测理论、特征整合理论和学习理论三种不同的解释。研究者们对冲突适应的产生条件(诱发冲突适应的冲突性质、范围和程度)进行了大量的研究, 同时, 对冲突适应效应的影响因素(工作记忆、注意资源及动机和情绪)也做了探讨。未来的研究应将认知因素和非认知因素结合起来探讨冲突适应效应的产生条件及影响因素, 并加强神经机制的研究, 以更好的揭示冲突适应效应的实质。     

进化心理学取向与当代心理学

进化心理学以进化论为理论基础,用适应的观点来解释人类的心理机制及其行为方式。本文通过阐明进化心理学的产生背景,重点论述了进化心理学的思维方式及其与心理学主要学科分支的联系,并指出了进化心理学对当代心理学发展的影响。     

进化心理学中的悲观主义色彩

进化心理学作为现代西方心理学三种新取向之一,提出了一些新的心理学观点与研究方向,但其理论本身体现出了一种悲观主义色彩。例如在对男女两性在伴侣选择和婚姻维持的心理行为机制的探究上体现出的一些人类高级情感,如爱情的缺失。文章探讨了进化心理学理论中悲观主义色彩在其主要理论假设中的体现,并简要地将其与另外两种取向———后现代心理学与积极心理学进行了对比。其目的是为了通过对进化心理学的反思,以推进心理学科的深入研究。     

The evolved function of the oedipal conflict

Freud based his oedipal theory on three clinical observations of adult romantic relationships: (1) Adults tend to split love and lust; (2) There tend to be sex differences in the ways that men and women split love and lust; (3) Adult romantic relationships are unconsciously structured by the dynamics of love triangles in which dramas of seduction and betrayal unfold. Freud believed that these aspects of adult romantic relationships were derivative expressions of a childhood oedipal conflict that has been repressed. Recent research conducted by evolutionary psychologists supports many of Freud’s original observations and suggests that Freud’s oedipal conflict may have evolved as a sexually selected adaptation for reproductive advantage. The evolution of bi-parental care based on sexually exclusive romantic bonds made humans vulnerable to the costs of sexual infidelity, a situation of danger that seriously threatens monogamous bonds. A childhood oedipal conflict enables humans to better adapt to this longstanding evolutionary problem by providing the child with an opportunity to develop working models of love triangles. On the one hand, the oedipal conflict facilitates monogamous resolutions by creating intense anxiety about the dangers of sexual infidelity and mate poaching. On the other hand, the oedipal conflict in humans may facilitate successful cheating and mate poaching by cultivating a talent for hiding our true sexual intentions from others and even from ourselves. The oedipal conflict in humans may be disguised by evolutionary design in order to facilitate tactical deception in adult romantic relationships.     

Human sexual conflict from molecules to culture

Coevolutionary arms races between males and females have equipped both sexes with mutually manipulative and defensive adaptations. These adaptations function to benefit individual reproductive interests at the cost of the reproductive interests of opposite- sex mates, and arise from evolutionary dynamics such as parental investment (unequal reproductive costs between the sexes) and sexual selection (unequal access to opposite-sex mates). Individuals use these adaptations to hijack others' reproductive systems, psychological states, and behaviors-essentially using other individuals as extended phenotypes of themselves. Such extended phenotypic manipulation of sexual rivals and opposite-sex mates is enacted by humans with the aid of hormones, pheromones, neurotransmitters, emotions, language, mind-altering substances, social institutions, technologies, and ideologies. Furthermore, sexual conflict may be experienced at an individual level when maternal genes and paternal genes are in conflict within an organism. Sexual conflict may be physically and emotionally destructive, but may also be exciting and constructive for relationships. By extending the biological concept of sexual conflict into social and cultural domains, scholars may successfully bridge many of the interdisciplinary gaps that separate the sciences from the humanities.     

Cognitive Biases and Emotional Wisdom in the Evolution of Conflict Between the Sexes

Two recent theories within evolutionary psychology have produced novel insights into conflict between the sexes. According to error management theory (EMT), asymmetries over evolutionary time in the cost-benefit consequences of specific social inferences have produced predictable cognitive biases. Women, for example, appear to underinfer commitment in response to signals of resource display. Men often overinfer a woman's sexual desire when she merely smiles at or casually touches them. These inferential biases, according to EMT, represent functional adaptations rather than markers of irrationality in information processing. According to strategic interference theory , certain "negative emotions" function to motivate action to reduce conflict produced by impediments to preferred social strategies. Emotions such as jealousy and anger, rather than reducing rationality, may embody inherited ancestral wisdom functional in dealing with interference inflicted by other individuals. These evolution-based theories have produced novel empirical discoveries and challenge traditional theories anchored in the premise that cognitive biases and negative emotions necessarily lead to irrationality.     

Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism: A reply to Eagly and Wood (2011)

I comment on Eagly and Wood's biosocial constructionist evolutionary theory (2011; DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9). Although this gender feminist theory allows for evolved physical differences between men and women and evolved psychological similarities for men and women, it fails to consider evolutionary accounts of psychological sex differences. I hypothesize that gender feminists' reluctance to acknowledge that evolution has left different fingerprints on men's and women's bodies and brains stems from two common misunderstandings of evolutionary psychology: the myth of immutability and the naturalistic fallacy. I conclude that although evolutionary psychology is eminently compatible with equity feminism, evolutionary psychology and feminist psychology will conflict as long as the latter adheres to gender feminism and its unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence for evolved psychological sex differences. Gender feminism's dualistic view of evolution hinders the search for and understanding of the proximate and ultimate causes of inequality. Feminist psychology needs to evolve by embracing equity feminism, which has no a priori stance on the origin or existence of differences between the sexes.     

Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset

Advances an evolution-based model of strategic conflict between men and women. Conflict is predicted to occur whenever the reproductive strategy adopted by one sex interferes with that adopted by the opposite sex. Three empirical studies tested hypotheses based on this model. Study 1 (N = 528) examined sex differences in sources of anger and upset (e.g., about sexual aggressiveness or withholding) among 2 samples of Ss differing in age and martial status. Study 2 (N = 60) assessed the perceived magnitude of upset each sex would experience when confronted by each source. Study 3 (N = 214) tested predictions within married couples about sex differences in sources of marital and sexual dissatisfaction. These studies provide modest support for the strategic conflict model and implicate the negative emotions of anger and upset as proximate mechanisms that alert men and women to strategic interference. The diversity of upset elicitors discovered here, such as being condescending, possessive, neglecting, abusive, inconsiderate, moody, and self-centered, point to the limitations of this evolutionary model and the need to develop more comprehensive models of conflict between the sexes.     

EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN JEALOUSY?

Abstract— Evolutionary psychology has become a popular framework for studying jealousy. Much of this popularity can be attributed to work by Buss and his colleagues showing an apparent relation between an individual's sex and jealousy for certain types of infidelity (i.e., sexual vs emotional) that is consistent with evolutionary theory (Buss, Larsen, Westen. & Semmelrolh, 1992). In two studies, we take issue with these findings and argue that the relation between sex and jealousy reported by Buss and his colleagues is more property explained by considering individuals' beliefs concerning the covariation between sexual and emotional infidelity.     

The relationship between familial resemblance and sexual attraction: an update on Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo

Foundational principles of evolutionary theory predict that inbreeding avoidance mechanisms should exist in all species--including humans--in which close genetic relatives interact during periods of sexual maturity. Voluminous empirical evidence, derived from diverse taxa, supports this prediction. Despite such results, Fraley and Marks claim to provide evidence that humans are sexually attracted to close genetic relatives and that such attraction is held in check by cultural taboos. Here, the authors show that Fraley and Marks, in their search for an alternate explanation of inbreeding avoidance, misapply theoretical constructs from evolutionary biology and social psychology, leading to an incorrect interpretation of their results. The authors propose that Fraley and Marks's central findings can be explained in ways consistent with existing evolutionary models of inbreeding avoidance. The authors conclude that appropriate application of relevant theory and stringent experimental design can generate fruitful investigations into sexual attraction, inbreeding avoidance, and incest taboos.     

和平心理学的经典传统与现代研究趋向

本文讨论了不同历史时期的心理学家对和平心理的看法,以“和平”为主线,追溯和平心理学思潮兴起的历史逻辑。毕达哥拉斯、恩培多克勒、柏拉图、奥古斯丁、夸美纽斯、康德等从本体论视角,确立了实现永久和平的理想追求。冯特的民族心理学重视研究原始人、战争英雄等的和平心理品质,早期的意动心理学重视人类和平意识研究,机能心理学强调通过建设学校“微型共同体”,提高儿童的和平意识。精神分析心理学则为战争与和平心理提供了新视角。人本主义心理学主张研究人的和平潜能、致力于世界和平冲突化解,推动了和平心理学的兴起。20世纪末的和平心理学主张用和平的方式实现和平,发生了“政治道歉”、和平冲突化解、“人类命运共同体”等研究趋向。     

The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock: Does Evolutionary Psychology Exaggerate Human Sex Differences?

This article looks at the evolution of sex differences in sexuality in human beings and asks whether evolutionary psychology sometimes exaggerates these differences. According to a common understanding of sexual selection theory, females in most species invest more than males in their offspring, and as a result, males compete for as many mates as possible, whereas females choose from among the competing males. The males-compete/females-choose (MCFC) model applies to many species but is misleading when applied to human beings. This is because males in our species commonly contribute to the rearing of the young, which reduces the sex difference in parental investment. Consequently, sex differences in our species are relatively modest. Rather than males competing and females choosing, humans have a system of mutual courtship: Both sexes are choosy about long-term mates, and both sexes compete for desirable mates. We call this the mutual mate choice (MMC) model. Although much of the evolutionary psychology literature is consistent with the MMC model, the traditional MCFC model exerts a strong influence on the field, distorting the emerging picture of the evolved sexual psychology of Homo sapiens. Specifically, it has led to the exaggeration of the magnitude of human sex differences, an overemphasis on men's short-term mating inclinations, and a relative neglect of male mate choice and female mate competition. We advocate a stronger focus on the MMC model.