THE THEORY OF evolution by natural selection has revolutionary implications for understanding the design of the human mind and brain, as Darwin himself was the first to recognize (Darwin, 1859). Indeed, a principled understanding of the network of causation that built the functional architecture of the human species offers the possibility of transforming the study of humanity into a natural science capable of precision and rapid progress. Yet, nearly a century and a half after The Origin of Species was published, the psychological, social, and behavioral sciences remain largely untouched by these implications, and many of these disciplines continue to be founded on assumptions evolutionarily informed researchers know to be false (Pinker, 2002; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Evolutionary psychology is the long-forestalled scientific attempt to assemble out of the disjointed, fragmentary, and mutually contradictory human disciplines a single, logically integrated research framework for the psychological, social, and behavioral sciences—a framework that not only incorporates the evolutionary sciences on a full and equal basis, but that systematically works out all of the revisions in existing belief and research practice that such a synthesis requires (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). The long-term scientific goal toward which evolutionary psychologists are working is the mapping of our universal human nature. By this, we mean the construction of a set of empirically validated, high-resolution models of the evolved mechanisms that collectively constitute universal human nature. Because the evolved function of a psychological mechanism is computational—to regulate behavior and the body adaptively in response to informational inputs—such a model consists of a description of the functional circuit logic or information

Abstract: Sex differences in same-sex direct aggression and sociosexuality are among the most robust in the literature. The present article evaluated the hypothesis that both can be explained by a sex difference in the willingness to take impulsive risks. Self-report data were gathered from 3,775 respondents (1,514 female) on same-sex aggression, sociosexuality, and risky impulsivity. Risky impulsivity was higher for men than for women (d =.34) and path analysis showed it to be a common cause of same-sex aggression and sociosexuality for both sexes. However, it did not completely mediate the sex differences in same-sex aggression and sociosexuality. The results suggest that same-sex aggression and sociosexual behavior share a common psychological mechanism, but that fully explaining sex differences in aggression requires a more sensitive assay of impulsive risk and a consideration of dyadic processes.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to X.T. Wang, Psychology Department,

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp