Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026

Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues
Published on: June 3, 2013
Nature, culture, and explanations for erotic plasticity: reply to Andersen, Cyranowski, and Aarestad (2000) and Hyde
Baumeister1, Catanese, Campbell
1Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7123, USA. rfb2@po.cwru.edu
Abstract:
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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Evolutionary Psychology
Natural Selection and Mating Preferences
Females, due to their biological roles in conception, pregnancy, and nursing, inherently...
Criticisms of the Evolutionary Perspective
Evolutionary psychology provides one explanation for these findings, suggesting...
Horney's Sociocultural Approach
The Role of Culture
Factors Influencing Attraction II: Physical Attraction

