- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Scholars, moralists, and writers have warned men to steer clear of beautiful women since antiquity. A spate of recent studies suggests that beautiful women can indeed be dangerous, because they inadvertently induce men to take risks, make mistakes, gamble, and generally behave impulsively. Read More
this is psychology today and
this is psychology today and yet a marketing professor is writing this article. interesting.
yes, psychology is a
yes, psychology is a subjective field
The testosterone response
Although psychology may be a more subjective field than biology, the physiology of the testosterone response associated with male behavior had been detailed in animal studies. Olfactory/pheromonal input that is associated with the presence of females conditions the measurable increase in testosterone. Once this response has been conditioned, human males should respond to the visual appeal of an attractive female with testosterone-driven changes in their behavior. They don't make the more obvious changes in their behavior that are made by other male mammals, but the altered response of human males continues to link us to the evolved neurophysiological mechanisms of other animals, whether marketers look at chess players or skate boarders.
Beautiful Women
Ah - what a subject!
It is also a fact - I believe - that the most attractive women sometimes get `left behind` because of their perceived `unavailability`. Often that very perception is what makes them feel a little uneasy with their own self-assessment.
When it comes right down to it - the confidence and comfortable self-assertiveness of the man - makes the playing field even.
http://www.millicentiv.info
http://espressomakersinfo.com/nespresso-d290-concept-espresso-review
So they just can't help it?
This is an amusing study, but the problem with this line of reasoning is that it implies men "just can't help" their behavior around women ... and therefore--or so the thinking goes--they don't have to be responsible for it.
It's an extremely dangerous road to start down.
Explanations vs. Justifications
Hi everyone,
Thanks for taking the time to comment--I really appreciate your input. (I'm not sure I follow the reasoning behind the "marketing professor" comments--my PhD is in psychology and I'm appointed as an affiliated professor in the NYU psychology department, so I feel equipped to comment on matters psychological.)
This last comment is particularly important. By uncovering a relationship between the presence of an attractive woman and risk-taking in men, I'm not trying to suggest that men are justified in taking those risks. There are biological explanations for all sorts of morally questionable acts (many involving testosterone fluctuations--e.g., male aggression), but that doesn't excuse them or justify them. For the many skateboarders and chess players who embraced risky behaviors in the presence of attractive women, many others didn't. Biological mechanisms don't absolve men (or women) of responsibility for their actions, but it's useful to understand those biological mechanisms if only because we're better equipped to minimize the likelihood of negative outcomes if we understand why they arise in the first place.
Very well-put, especially
Very well-put, especially that second paragraph. :)
Men just can't help it
It is an unfortunate fact that anyone who links sensory input to behavior is likely to be accused of supporting bad behavior by helping to explain it. Caveats like "...I'm not trying to suggest that men are justified in taking those risks" should not be required, but often are required. Perhaps you will consider writing another excellent article that helps to explain why people think that detailed biological mechanisms absolve men (or women) of responsibility for their actions.
From fellow PT blogger -- arousal and IQ
Adam,
I believe the process may effect either gender. I vividly recall a female journalist reporting that the first time she saw Paul Newman in a Connecticut ice cream shop, she put her ice cream cone in her pocketbook without realizing it.
As a sex therapist, the main problem in my office is when a couple's arousal level NO LONGER is sufficient to make them stupid. I discuss this issue from a clinical rather than a research perspective in two recent PT blogs "Some Open Secrets About Sexuality" http://ow.ly/3se3t and "Sexuality, Simmering, and the B train from the beach" http://ow.ly/3se57
Glad to see that the research and clinical angles are roughly congruent.
Thanks so much for presenting these research findings.
Stephen Snyder, MD
www.sexualityresource.com
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/SexualityToday
www.twitter.com/SexualityToday
Not just about heterosexual men...
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your comments. You're absolutely right, of course: heterosexual men don't have a monopoly on this brand of distraction. Your anecdote is fantastic; I wish I'd come across it before writing the post! And I really enjoyed your posts, too.
The one possible distinction between heterosexual men and women is that their divergent biological responses to an attractive member of the opposite sex might provoke different behavioral responses. So, whereas men become more risk-taking (a typical consequence of elevated testosterone levels), women might show subtly different responses. But without empirical evidence, that's just conjecture.
Thanks again,
Adam
more evolutionary psychology crap
Although I can't think of a better authority on evolutionary psychology than a professor of marketing, since evolutionary psychology is 5% science and 95% marketing.
One of the things I love about evolutionary psychologists is that gay men and women don't appear to be of interest in any of these types of studies.
And if you want the opinion of a serious scientist on the work of Daly and Wilson, check out anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson's refutation of their violent step-father theories in his paper "Materialist, cultural and biological theories on why Yanomami make war.":
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:M_gHd_WzoMIJ:citeseerx.ist.psu...
Evolutionary psychology is for chumps. And the evidence is mounting more every day.
Thanks, Nancy.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Nancy. I’ll respond to your post in parts.
First, this article isn’t an “evolutionary psychology” article. I haven’t invoked evolutionary explanations for the effects; instead, I’ve simply relayed the behavioral results reported in the relevant papers. Apart from Wilson and Daly, none of the researchers I’ve referred to are “evolutionary psychologists.” Even when I discuss Wilson and Daly’s results, I’m agnostic about whether the mechanism has roots in evolution. Instead, you’ll see that I propose elevated testosterone levels as a possible mechanism--a biological mechanism, rather than an evolutionary mechanism.
Second, I agree with your general suggestion that evolutionary psychologists (like any researchers who study gender and sexuality) could devote more attention to the LGBT community. But you overstate your case when you claim that “gay men and women don’t appear to be of interest in any of these types of studies.” Which studies are you referring to? All studies in evolutionary psychology? Or just the narrow topic I’ve discussed in my post? Assuming the former based on the rest of your comments, some researchers in the field focus almost exclusively on LGBT populations. Here’s a (limited and randomly selected) sampling of relevant papers:
Bobrow, D., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Is male homosexuality maintained via kin selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 361-368.
Rahman, Q., & Wilson, G. D. (2003). Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1337-1382.
Third, thanks for supplying a link to Ferguson’s paper, but my post had nothing to do with Daly and Wilson’s theories on war and infanticide (which Ferguson refutes in his paper). If you have any substantive criticisms of the research I discussed, or how I interpreted the relevant findings, I’ll be glad to respond to them.
I won’t rise to the bait of your opening sentence, or your suggestion that I or the researchers I’ve referred to are less than “serious.” Intemperate remarks like those are poor substitutes for meaningful commentary.
What a disappontment, PT
Great, another sexist "women-are-at-fault-for-men's-bad-actions" article, and on top of that, "research" that adds to the myriad of boy-girl heteronormalative findings out there... Why must this data be so exclusive? NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS (STRICTLY) ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX. And again, enough with the sexism! Men, take responsibilty for your impulsiveness! Vaginas had nothing to do with it!
Yet another irresponsible PT article.
Is this the best you could come up with?
Heteronormalative research, sexist article. Yet another poorly written PT article. The world does not need another article making women look like the cause of all men's problems!! This could've been worded more sensitively. And if I read another boy-likes-girl study claiming to be some sort of general representation I'm gonna... AGRHHHH! Research demands inclusiveness (& non-gender bias) plain and simple. But I didn't need a marketing professional to tell me that. . .
Mensa's carping
Mensa, so you are going to deny that hormones provoke behavior, and that the presence of sexy, fertile members of either sex don't provoke a hormonal cascade?
Most people in the world are attracted to the opposite sex. Just because you aren't, or you feel compelled to protect or advance those who aren't, doesn't mean that mainstream publications can't write articles about it.
Your whininess only adds to the image of homosexuals being weak.
LOL and
your credibility just shot up sky high with that last sentence.
1) I'm not homosexual. 2)
1) I'm not homosexual.
2) Your response only acknowledges the fact that your are an sexist, close-minded bigot. And an ignorant one at that!
Good day!
PS: If you're a man (and you are obviously), man up for your actions!
The model is the same for heterosexual and homosexual attraction
The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences [for other males].
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/kohl.htm
Post new comment