Nature, culture, and explanations for erotic plasticity: Reply to Andersen, Cyranowski, and Aarestad (2000) and Hyde and Durik (2000)

被引：7

作者：

Baumeister, RF ^{[1
]}

Catanese, KR ^{[1
]}

Campbell, WK ^{[1
]}

Tice, DM ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Case Western Reserve Univ, Dept Psychol, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA

来源：

PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN | 2000年 / 126卷 / 03期

关键词：

D O I：

10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.385

中图分类号：

B84 [心理学];

学科分类号：

04 ; 0402 ;

摘要：

R. F. Baumeister's (2000) article on erotic plasticity was criticized by B. L. Andersen, J. M. Cyranowski, and S. Aarestad (2000) for not being biological enough and by J. S, Hyde and A. M. Durik (2000) for being too biological. Both critiques were based on drawing a polarized caricature of R. F. Baumeister's actual view, although the two caricatures are opposites. Actually, neither commentary questioned the gender difference R. F. Baumeister documented; rather, the dispute is about how to explain it, which is indeed a challenge remaining for further work. Although both commentaries provided valuable suggestions about how to approach an explanation, neither approach can provide a coherent account until various theoretical problems are resolved and seemingly contrary empirical findings are addressed.

引用

页码：385 / 389

页数：5