Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Steve Gangestad

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_38-1
How to cite

Synonyms

Handicap hypothesis; Hard to fake signaling; Intra-sexual signaling

Definition

Sexual signaling refers to the ways that members of one sex signal their mate quality to members of the opposite sex.

Introduction

Steve Gangestad, Distinguished Professor, Evolutionary-Developmental Area Head University of New Mexico, is a psychologist at UNM, where he is best known for his work on evolution and development using quantitative methods. For many years he has been working with collaborators – notably Randy Thornhill – on the question of whether, in humans, female estrus is (as some scholars aver) truly lost. Typically, primates advertise their fertile phase through conspicuous displays. Humans do not do this. However, Gangestad has argued that a raft of behaviors indicate that estrus is concealed in humans rather than lost. This implies that there are two distinct types of sexual behavior in women. The first, during the fertile phase and the second – extended sexuality – during the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Developmental stability, fluctuating asymmetry, and human sexual selection. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary personality and social psychology (pp. 169–195). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Cousins, A. J., & Thornhill, R. (2014). Intersexual conflict across women’s ovulatory cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2015). Women’s sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle: Function and phylogeny. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. King, R., & Belsky, J. (2012). A typological approach to testing the evolutionary functions of human female orgasm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1145–1160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Speed, A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1997). Romantic popularity and mate preferences: A peer nomination study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 928–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999a). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999b). The scent of symmetry: A human pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 175–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., & Comer, R. (1995). Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour, 50, 1601–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection–a selection for a handicap. Journal of theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied PsychologyUniversity College CorkCorkIreland