Benenson et al. (this issue) did a commendable job of establishing self-protection as a general biological strategy that women adopt and of elucidating the strategy's health benefits (and occasional costs). They had less space for discussing behavioral implications. We assume the behavioral benefits are easy to understand, but are there hidden costs? These could indicate vulnerabilities or problems that could afflict women.

Some of our own work has explored tradeoffs between self-protection and self-enhancement (Alicke & Sedikides, Reference Alicke and Sedikides2009; Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, Reference Baumeister, Tice and Hutton1989; Tice, Reference Tice1991). Self-protection is centrally about avoiding risk. But great achievements often require risk, indeed sometimes substantial risks. A self-protective orientation can prevent disastrous failures – but may well also prevent breakthrough successes. Arguably, throughout the history of civilization, men have been responsible for the majority of both, likely driven in part by the male quest for self-enhancement. The self-protective element of female psychology may be a reason for this gender disparity.

Self-enhancement, on the other hand, is centrally about taking risks. Self-enhancement facilitates achievement (Sedikides, Reference Sedikides2020). It is positively related to or increases the pursuit and attainment of personally important goals, while augmenting creativity. And it is linked to seeking leadership positions and being elected as a leader.

By coincidence, one of us recently participated in an investigation in which participants predicted the consequences of various hypothetical innovations (e.g., a robot to chop down trees, a procedure for cloning house pets) on a scale from −100 (mostly negative) to +100 (mostly positive) (Reece, Eubanks, Liebscher, & Baumeister, Reference Reece, Eubanks, Liebscher and Baumeister2022). Gender was not in the study design, but demographic data were collected, thereby enabling exploratory post hoc reanalyses. Across all studies and conditions (N = 1,567), the male mean of 25.0 was much more positive than the female mean of 0.75. The male confidence interval was far above the neutral midpoint (zero) whereas the female confidence interval included it. Put another way, exploratory reanalyses of an existing data set found that men predicted more positive than negative consequences whereas women predicted equal amounts of both. Thus, consistent with Benenson et al.'s (this issue) theory, the potential downside of various innovations was more salient to the women than the men.

Self-enhancement has also implications for psychological health. It is associated with, predicts, and increases self-esteem (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Cai, Reference Sedikides, Gaertner and Cai2015). In addition, it is positively associated with, and predicts, high levels of life satisfaction or positive affect, and low levels of negative affect or depression (Dufner, Gebauer, Sedikides, & Denissen, Reference Dufner, Gebauer, Sedikides and Denissen2019). Moreover, self-enhancement increases life satisfaction and subjective well-being, and decreases depression, anxiety, and stress (O'Mara, Gaertner, Sedikides, Zhou, & Liu, Reference O'Mara, Gaertner, Sedikides, Zhou and Liu2012). These benefits of self-enhancement are observed across cultures.

Women report lower levels of self-enhancement (Grijalva et al., Reference Grijalva, Newman, Tay, Donnellan, Harms, Robins and Yan2015) and self-esteem (Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, Reference Kling, Hyde, Showers and Buswell1999). Further, women report lower life satisfaction and more negative affect than men, while the evidence on positive affect is inconclusive (Batz-Barbarich, Tay, Kuykendall, & Cheung, Reference Batz-Barbarich, Tay, Kuykendall and Cheung2018). Average happiness levels across female populations are likely reduced by their considerably higher incidence of depression (Salk, Hyde, & Abramson, Reference Salk, Hyde and Abramson2017). Benenson et al. (this issue) note the link between female self-protection and depression but do not offer much explanation other than the heightened sensitivity to pain. There may be multiple links, including the lesser use of self-enhancement.

Another traditional theme of gender theory is the tradeoff between agency and communion (Bakan, Reference Bakan1966), with women being less agentic but more communal than men (Hsu, Badura, Newman, & Speach, Reference Hsu, Badura, Newman and Speach2021). This too fits well into the self-protection analysis. Agency means taking initiative, which brings risk. Communion means connecting with others, which is vital for safety. The female self-protective orientation would plausibly contribute to a shift in their psychology toward greater communion rather than agency. Again, the benefits from such a shift are clear, but the lesser agency might carry costs such as lesser achievement or innovation.

A related pattern emerges from clinical observations. People adopt self-protective patterns or schemas during difficult childhood or adolescent periods, and then sometimes maintain these in adult relationships. These schemas have high predictive value by repeating the same feelings or experiences over and over again. If men engage in this practice, women engage in it more (Shorey et al., Reference Shorey, Zucosky, Brasfield, Febres, Cornelius, Sage and Stuart2012). These schemas generate high levels of negative affect and self-defeating consequences, and go against self-enhancement (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, Reference Young, Klosko and Weishaar2003).

In closing, we concur with Benenson et al.'s (this issue) powerfully integrative idea that women tend to adopt self-protection as a general strategy. This strategy has certain advantages, which could be complemented by a trade-off with a self-enhancement strategy.