Abstract
In response to Maccoby's and Hinde's thoughtful commentaries, we highlight points of concurrence and disagreement. In particular, we note that mating and reproduction are affected by many factors beyond those to which our theory draws immediate attention; that the data linking socialization experiences and social structural conditions with pubertal timing are not restricted to either correlational studies or investigations of contemporaneous associations; that there may be more reason to question the theory's applicability to males than to females; that the question of whether males behave and develop the way we propose and Maccoby doubts is an empirically testable one; and that the data on relations between antecedent socialization conditions and pubertal timing and on variation in parental investment in the case of females run counter to Maccoby's doubts about the theory's applicability to females. Attention is drawn to the potential benefits of asking questions about proximal and ultimate causation simultaneously, and thus the need for child developmentalists to think both about the how and why of development.