Page 139 - Demo

137A reply to Lee et al. (2020)7Figure 1. Distribution of (A) sociosexual orientation scores and (B) averageinterest in partners for men and women in the dataset of Lee et al. Dashed linesshow the mean SOI (left) and sexual interest (right) per sex.well known that men have higher sociosexuality scores than women (Penke &Asendorpf, 2008), a pattern replicated in Lee et al.’s data (publicly availablehere https://osf.io/je4h7/). Specifically, when conducting a Welch t-test ontheir impressive sample of 1184 participants comparing the two sexes, wefound that men reported higher sociosexuality scores than women (Figure1A; t(1170) = -12.03, p < .001, d = 0.70). In similar vein, self-reportedattraction towards the partner was higher in men than in women (Figure1B; t(1199) = -10.31, p < .001, d = 0.59). It is not surprising that sex differ,ences in the overperception bias disappeared when adding these mediatingvariables, as the sex differences in the mediators are confounding their mainanalysis.What Lee et al. did illustrate is that sex differences in the sexual overper,ception effect possibly arise due to sex differences in sociosexual orientationand attraction to the partner. Therefore, these mediating factors could beinterpreted as a potential mechanism through which sex differences in sex,ual overperception bias arise. Indeed, this is in line with previous work by(Howell et al., 2012), that clearly distinguished mechanism from function,suggesting that sociosexual orientation is likely a mechanism through whichsex differences p redicted by E rror M anagement T heory ( Haselton & Buss,2000; Haselton, 2003) arise. Given our re-analysis of Lee et al.’s data weagree with the mechanistic interpretation of similar findings a s g iven byHowell et al. (2012), and believe that the results do not challenge the adap,tive value of the sex differences in sexual overperception bias as posited byError Management Theory.Returning to our earlier hypothetical question, if male bird song andtestosterone are associated, does this imply that there is no relationshipbetween singing and reproductive success? In short, no. To challenge anultimate explanation, it is necessary to offer an alternative ultimate explanation and not a proximal one. In the case of sexual overperception, differentselection pressures might have translated into higher sexual desire and interest in partners for men than for women. Importantly, if these variablesexplained overperception, as Lee et al. suggest, this would solely providethe how in observed sex differences in the sexual overperception effect, butdoes not offer any intuition regarding the mechanisms’ ultimate function. Infact, the increased sociosexuality and interest in men compared to womenare predicted by Error Management Theory (see also Sexual Strategies Theory: Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Therefore, we argue that Lee et al. providedevidence of a potential mechanism for Error Management Theory’s ultimatetheory of sexual overperception bias (Haselton & Buss, 2000). Accordingto Error Management Theory, since male reproductive success is limited bythe number of sexual partners, it is less costly to misjudge sexual interestwhen there is none, than to miss an opportunity. From an evolutionaryperspective, one of these is costlier than the other. As a consequence, natural selection favoured mechanisms leading to the overperception of sexualdesire in men (Haselton, 2003; Kokko, Brooks, Jennions, & Morley, 2003).As we have argued, higher sexual desire in men could very well be one ofthese mechanisms, which shows that the results of Lee et al. are perfectlyin line with the ultimate explanation offered by Error Management Theory(Haselton & Galperin, 2013).To their merit, Lee et al. discuss the fact that their mediating variablesmay be proximate explanations for sex differences in overperception, butthey end up rejecting this view. However, we find their reasoning difficult tofollow. The authors seem to argue that EMT predicts a domain-specific sexdifference at the proximal level, which would then result in sex differences inperception of sexual interest. While we agree that this is an implausible explanation, we disagree that this proximate explanation could be drawn fromthe EMT framework. Instead, EMT is primarily concerned with the ultimate causes of behavior, and remains “virtually silent” about the proximatecauses (Haselton & Galperin, 2013, p. 249). As a more plausible explanation, Lee et al. suggest that sex differences in perception of sexual interestcould be the result of sex-specific selection on variation in (a) sociosexualityand (b) attraction to partners. These two factors would in turn result insex differences in perception of sexual interest. It is our contention thatthe authors might be referring to sexual dimorphism when suggesting thatdomain-specific differences are predicted by EMT. However, sex differencescan be defined as average differences between men and women on a continuFigure 1. Distribution of (A) sociosexual orientation scores and (B) averageinterest in partners for men and women in the dataset of Lee et al. Dashedlines show the mean SOI (left) and sexual interest (right) per sex.well known that men have higher sociosexuality scores than women (Penke &Asendorpf, 2008), a pattern replicated in Lee et al.’s data (publicly availablehere https://osf.io/je4h7/). Specifically, when conducting a Welch t-test ontheir impressive sample of 1184 participants comparing the two sexes, wefound that men reported higher sociosexuality scores than women (Figure1A; t(1170) = -12.03, p < .001, d = 0.70). In similar vein, self-reportedattraction towards the partner was higher in men than in women (Figure1B; t(1199) = -10.31, p < .001, d = 0.59). It is not surprising that sex differ,ences in the overperception bias disappeared when adding these mediatingvariables, as the sex differences in the mediators are confounding their mainanalysis.What Lee et al. did illustrate is that sex differences in the sexual overper,ception effect possibly arise due to sex differences in sociosexual orientationand attraction to the partner. Therefore, these mediating factors could beinterpreted as a potential mechanism through which sex differences in sex,ual overperception bias arise. Indeed, this is in line with previous work byHowell et al. (2012), that clearly distinguished mechanism from function,suggesting that sociosexual orientation is likely a mechanism through whichsex differences predicted by Error Management Theory (Haselton & Buss,2000; Haselton, 2003) arise. Given our re-analysis of Lee et al.’s data weagree with the mechanistic interpretation of similar findings as given byHowell et al. (2012), and believe that the results do not challenge the adap,Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 137 08-04-2024 16:36