Self-protection as an adaptive female strategy

Abstract

Many male traits are well explained by sexual selection theory as adaptations to mating competition and mate choice, whereas no unifying theory explains traits expressed more in females. Anne Campbell's “staying alive” theory proposed that human females produce stronger self-protective reactions than males to aggressive threats because self-protection tends to have higher fitness value for females than males. We examined whether Campbell's theory has more general applicability by considering whether human females respond with greater self-protectiveness than males to other threats beyond aggression. We searched the literature for physiological, behavioral, and emotional responses to major physical and social threats, and found consistent support for females’ responding with greater self-protectiveness than males. Females mount stronger immune responses to many pathogens; experience a lower threshold to detect, and lesser tolerance of, pain; awaken more frequently at night; express greater concern about physically dangerous stimuli; exert more effort to avoid social conflicts; exhibit a personality style more focused on life's dangers; react to threats with greater fear, disgust and sadness; and develop more threat-based clinical conditions than males. Our findings suggest that in relation to threat human females have relatively heightened protective reactions compared to males. The pervasiveness of this result across multiple domains suggests that general mechanisms might exist underlying females’ unique adaptations. An understanding of such processes would enhance knowledge of female health and well-being.

Early adversity, adult lifestyle, and posttraumatic stress disorder in a military sample

“…Nevertheless, the benefits of lower values on our life history orientation factor were not enough to offset other factors that magnify PTSD risk among women. In non-military samples, across cultures, women evince greater anxiety, neuroticism and pain sensitivity than men, and lower sensation seeking, attributes which are consistent with a more cautious, harm-avoidant strategy consonant with lower sex-specific variance in fitness (Benenson et al, 2021;Sparks et al, 2018). These personality correlates themselves constitute risk factors for PTSD (Calegaro et al, 2019;Jakšić et al, 2012).…”

Human Females as a Dispersal-Egalitarian Species: A Hypothesis about Women and Status

“…Specifically, mating is only one tiny component in determining RS for mammalian females. To fully realize her reproductive potential, a mammalian female must protect her own and her offsprings' lives, oftentimes for years, if not decades (Benenson et al, 2021;Campbell, 1999). Thus, whether an infant survives and how rapidly it develops, which typically are affected by rank, likely exert large influences on female RS (Pusey, 2012).…”

“…That is, the term "sexual selection" should be broadened to include whatever enhances reproductive fitness, including not only competition for mates, but also for food, shelter, territory, offspring protection, assistance with raising offspring, protection from predators and conspecifics, allies, coalition partners, and so forth (Stockley & Bro-Jørgensen, 2011). The RS of the two sexes then depends on different factors with survival needs more important particularly for mammalian females than males (Benenson et al, 2021;Campbell, 1999;Clutton-Brock, 2007Clutton-Brock & Huchard, 2013;Emlen & Oring, 1977;Stockley & Bro-Jørgensen, 2011). Furthermore, especially in monogamous primates, there may be few differences between females and males in the types of limitations on RS than had previously been supposed.…”

Measurement Bias, Sex Differences, and the Implications of Substantial Theories

“…Beyond mere characterization of the differences between men and women, there is a large literature that purports to explain these differences. Explanations frequently invoke notions such as "gender equality" (Costa et al, 2001;Schmitt, 2015;Giolla & Kajonius, 2018;Fors Connolly et al, 2020) 1 , "economic development" (Schmitt et al, 2009), "culture" (Schmitt et al, 2017), "development" (Bolle et al, 2015), "evolution" (Benenson et al, 2021), "ecological stress" (Kaiser, 2019), "genetics" (Ngun et al, 2011;Richardson & Boutwell, 2020), "neurobiology" (Stam et al, 2019;van Eijk et al, 2021), and so on 2 . The common current through all the explanations and most others out there is that they are substantial; this large literature tacitly holds that the differences between the sexes observed in its' studies are real and caused by some thing or set of things that affects changes in people's psychology.…”