Women's perceptions of sexual exploitability cues and their link to sexual attractiveness.

Two studies examined women's perception of the relationship between sexual exploitability and sexual attractiveness and women's use of cues to sexual exploitability to signal sexual accessibility. Study 1 (N = 77) found that women accurately assessed other women displaying cues to sexual exploitability both as sexually exploitable and sexually attractive to men. Study 2 (N = 74) tested the predictions that women who were dispositionally inclined toward short-term mating, who were not in a committed relationship, and who perceived themselves to be low in mate value would be more likely to display cues to sexual exploitability as a mate attraction tactic. Results supported the first prediction. These results suggest that a subset of women, those dispositionally inclined toward a short-term mating strategy, employ the risky strategy of signaling sexual accessibility using cues to exploitability to advance their mating goals.

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.

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.

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.

Delusional disorder-jealous type: how inclusive are the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria?

Delusional disorder-jealous type is a new diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) in which delusions concerning a partner's infidelity must be present. Therefore, patients who experience a jealousy disorder, but do not experience delusions will not fit the diagnostic criteria. Using a database of 398 case histories of jealousy disorders reported in the literature from 1940-2002, we examined the percentage of these cases that met the diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder-jealous type. Only 4% of the cases met all diagnostic criteria. This is the first systematic comparison of the prevalence of these disorders. The results provide evidence that the diagnostic criteria are not inclusive, as most individuals suffering with a jealousy disorder were excluded from the diagnosis.