Human groups contain reproductively relevant resources that differ greatly in their ease of accessibility. The authors advance a conceptual framework for the study of 2 classes of adaptations that have been virtually unexplored: (a) adaptations for exploitation designed to expropriate the resources of others through deception, manipulation, coercion, intimidation, terrorization, and force and (b) antiexploitation adaptations that evolved to prevent one from becoming a victim of exploitation. As soon as adaptations for exploitation evolved, they would immediately select for coevolved antiexploitation defenses-adaptations in target individuals, their kin, and their social allies designed to prevent their becoming a victim of exploitation. Antiexploitation defenses, in turn, created satellite adaptive problems for those pursuing a strategy of exploitation. Selection would favor the evolution of anticipatory and in situ solutions designed to circumvent the victim's defenses and minimize the costs of pursuing an exploitative strategy. Adaptations for exploitation have design features sensitive to the group dynamics in which they are deployed, including status hierarchies, social reputation, and the preferential selection of out-group victims.

No abstract

No abstract

We propose that stalking tactics have been shaped by evolutionary processes to help solve mating problems. These include: (1) acquiring new mates, (2) guarding existing mates to prevent defection, (3) fending off mate poachers, (4) poaching someone else's mate, (5) interfering with intrasexual competitors, (6) reacquiring ex-mates, (7) sexual exploitation and predation, and (8) guarding kin from sexual exploitation. We hypothesize several, gender-differentiated design features of psychological adaptations, including sensitivity to adaptive problems for which stalking was an ancestral solution and cognitive biases that function to motivate and perpetuate stalking behaviors. Although often abhorrent, cost-inflicting, and illegal, stalking sometimes enables successful adaptive solutions to problems of mating and within-gender competition faced by both men and women.

Different authors have proposed competing evolutionary theories of human mating. Some argue that both sexes are designed to pursue a singular long‐term mating strategy. Others contend that both sexes are designed to function as essentially multiple maters. Sexual Strategies Theory (SST; D.M. Buss & D.P. Schmitt, 1993), in contrast, proposes that men and women have evolved short‐term and long‐term mating strategies that are pursued differently by each sex depending on theoretically derived dimensions of context. According to SST, the sexes tend to differ in the nature and prominence of the short‐term component of human mating–particularly the short‐term desire for sexual variety. The current research was designed to test competing empirical predictions from these contrasting theories by focusing on sex differences in the desire for sexual variety. Study 1 (N= 1,049), consisting of five separate samples, found large and consistent sex differences in the desire for short‐term sexual variety, even after employing statistical methods to control for skewed distributions and statistical outliers. Study 2 (N= 192) confirmed the results of Study 1 using an older, more mature sample. Study 3 (N= 50) again replicated these sex differences using an observer‐based method of inquiry. Study 4 (N= 167) found evidence that short‐term mating was unrelated generally to psychological dysfunction and may be related to mentally healthy personality characteristics in men. Discussion focuses on the viability of pluralistic compared with monomorphic evolutionary theories of human mating strategies.