Page 136 - Demo

134Chapter 7Why do men often overestimate the chances of women feeling attracted tothem? This landmark question, known as the “sexual overperception bias”,has been subject of numerous investigations (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Shotland &Craig, 1988). Recently, Lee et al. (2020) showed that initial differences between sexes in the perception of sexual interest disappeared when controllingfor two mediating factors: sociosexual orientation (i.e., willingness to engagein uncommitted sex) and projection of own interest onto the partner. Without questioning the importance of these factors in the perception of sexualattraction, we argue that apart from these proximate explanations, the crucial difference between proximate and ultimate explanation has remainedoverseen in their manuscript. As a consequence, the authors’ conclusionthat sex differences disappear after controlling for mediating variables, isunwarranted. In the remainder of this reply, we clarify our argument thatLee et al. seem to describe a mechanism through which sex differences inoverperception can arise, and thus do not question the ultimate explanationoffered by Error Management Theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000; Haselton,2003; Haselton & Galperin, 2013). This theory suggests that, from an evolutionary perspective, men benefit more than women from overperceivingsexual interest.While a proximate explanation focuses on how a certain phenomenonworks (mechanistically), an ultimate explanation addresses the question ofwhy the phenomenon exists from an evolutionary point of view (Tinbergen,1963). These explanations are distinct and of equal merit, crystallized in the“proximate ultimate distinction” (Tinbergen, 1963; Mayr, 1963). Crucially,these explanations are complementary, so one does not negate the other. Forexample, consider the following statements: male birds sing (1) due to anincrease in circulating testosterone; or (2) to attract mates. Both statementscould be correct. The first describes the responsible mechanism; whereas,the latter addresses the adaptive value (MacDougall-Shackleton, 2011). Solet us consider the following question: in the case where we find that differences in circulating testosterone explain singing of male birds, would we bejustified in concluding that male birds do not sing to attract mates? Thisexample demonstrates the problem that we see in the conclusion of Lee etal.Lee et al. provide a proximate explanation for the sexual overperceptionbias and cast doubt on the validity of previously described sex differencesin sexual overperception bias. In their study, the authors conducted statistical analyses with sociosexual orientation and self-interest projection asmediators. Their results showed that when accounting for these, the overperception effect disappears, prompting the authors to conclude that “the sexdifference [in the sexual overperception bias] can be completely explained bythe mediators [...] .” We believe that this strong claim is not justified. It isUltimate and proximatefactors underlying sexualoverperception bias: A replyto Lee et al. (2020)Based on:Roth, T. S., Samara, I., & Kret, M. E. (2021). Ultimate and proximate factors underlying sexual overperception bias: A reply toLee et al. (2020). Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(1), 73-75.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.002Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 134 08-04-2024 16:36