Human Nature

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 98–103 | Cite as

Review of David C. Geary’s Evolution of Vulnerability: Implications for Sex Differences in Health and Development

(Amsterdam and London: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2015)
  • Anne Campbell

Two key questions drive this book: Why are some traits more easily disrupted by stressors than others? Why does the impact of environmental stressors often differ between the sexes? For example, poor nutrition during adolescence disrupts height and physical fitness—but more so in boys than girls. Early Alzheimer’s affects language competencies—but more so in women than men.

Not to keep the reader in suspense, Geary announces the answers his questions on page 2: “Traits that have been elaborated through social and sexual selection are especially vulnerable to disruption by environmental and social stressors.” Sexual selection drives these traits to ever greater elaboration, steadily increasing the challenge of pulling them off successfully. Greater upper-body strength makes a male more successful in combat. Peacocks’ elaborate plumage attracts mates despite being detrimental to locomotion and increasing predation risk. But in both cases a cost is associated with their successful...


Vulnerability Sex differences Health and development Cognitive traits Physical traits Behavioral traits 


  1. Campbell, A. & Stockley, P., eds. (2013). Female competition and aggression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368 (1631), whole issue.Google Scholar
  2. Darwin, C. (2004) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Penguin Classics. (Originally published 1871).Google Scholar
  3. Hill, G. E. (2014). Cellular respiration: the nexus of stress, condition, and ornamentation. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 54(4), 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. D. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21(4), 919–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Leary, C. J., & Knapp, R. (2014). The stress of elaborate male traits: integrating glucocorticoids with androgen based models of sexual selection. Animal Behaviour, 89, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pomiankowski, A., & Møller, A. P. (1995). A resolution of the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 260, 21–29.Google Scholar
  7. Rubenstein, D.R., Prum, R. & Levandowsky, M. (2012). Sexual selection, social conflict and the female perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367 (1600), whole issue.Google Scholar
  8. Scott, I. M. L., Clark, A. P., Boothroyd, L. G., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2012). Do men’s faces really signal heritable immunocompetence? Behavioral Ecology, 24, 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. West-Eberhard, M. J. (1983). Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology, 58, 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDurham University Science SiteDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations