Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article provides a historical context of evolutionary psychology and feminism, and evaluates the contributions to this special issue of Sex Roles within that context. We briefly outline the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology and articulate its meta-theory of the origins of gender similarities and differences. The article then evaluates the specific contributions: Sexual Strategies Theory and the desire for sexual variety; evolved standards of beauty; hypothesized adaptations to ovulation; the appeal of risk taking in human mating; understanding the causes of sexual victimization; and the role of studies of lesbian mate preferences in evaluating the framework of evolutionary psychology. Discussion focuses on the importance of social and cultural context, human behavioral flexibility, and the evidentiary status of specific evolutionary psychological hypotheses. We conclude by examining the potential role of evolutionary psychology in addressing social problems identified by feminist agendas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, U. S., Perea, E. F., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., et al. (2010). I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 804–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 249–311.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionary relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081–1093.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bassett, J., Pearcey, S., & Dabbs, J. M. (2001). Jealousy and partner preference among butch and femme lesbians. Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 3, 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Are there gender differences in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereczkei, T., & Csanaky, A. (1996). Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betzig, L. (1986). Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62, 661–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, R. J., Markey, C. M., & Hodges, S. D. (2007). Sex differences in self-reported infidelity and its correlates. Sex Roles, 57, 101–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, G. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2009). Vocal cues of ovulation in human females. Biology Letters, 5, 12–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burley, N., & Symanski, R. (1981). Women without: An evolutionary and cross-cultural perspective on prostitution. In R. Symanski (Ed.), The immoral landscape: Female prostitution in western societies (pp. 239–274). Toronto: Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1987). Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In C. Crawford, M. Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology: Issues, ideas, and findings (pp. 335–351). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. F. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100–118). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

  • Buss, D. M. (1995a). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. The American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1995b). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1996). Sexual conflict: Evolutionary insights into feminism and the ‘battle of the sexes’. In D. M. Buss & N. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 296–318). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2005a). (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Wiley.

  • Buss, D. M. (2005b). The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 65–86). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (2011). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. L. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. (1999). The evolutionary psychology of patriarchy: Women are not passive pawns in men’s game. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2008). Adaptations for exploitation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (in press). The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior.

  • Buss, D. M., & Malamuth, N. (Eds.). (1996). Sex, power. conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (2008). The morning after the night before: Affective reactions to one-night stands among mated and unmated women and men. Human Nature, 19, 157–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisler, J. C., & Erchull, M. J. (2010). The treatment of evolutionary psychology in social psychology textbooks. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 771–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1321–1327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. L., & Shotland, R. L. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse in a relationship: Expectations, experiences, and perceptions of others. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 291–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confer, J. C., Easton, J. E., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C., Lewis, D. M., Perilloux, C., et al. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. The American Psychologist, 65, 110–126.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, P. L., Tovee, M. J., & Bateson, M. (2009). Patterns of subcutaneous fat deposition and the relationship between body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio: Implications for models of physical attractiveness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 256, 343–350.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, S. J., & Russell, P. A. (2004). The influence of gender roles on evolved partner preferences. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6, 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A. P. C., Shackelford, T. K., & Hass, R. G. (2007). When a ‘poach’ is not a poach: Re-defining human mate poaching and re-estimating its frequency. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 702–716.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine, L., Jones, B. C., Frederick, D. A., Haselton, M. G., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). Evidence for menstrual cycle shifts in women’s preferences for masculinity: A response to Harris (in press) “Menstrual Cycle and Facial Preferences Reconsidered”. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 768–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Miguel, A., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Mate retention tactics in Spain: Personality, sex differences, and relationship status. Journal of Personality. Advance online publication.. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00689.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. The American Psychologist, 50, 145–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Eastwick, P. W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2009). Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 403–414.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. The American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlichman, H., & Eichenstein, R. (1992). Private wishes: Gender similarities and differences. Sex Roles, 26, 399–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckland, B. (1968). Theories of mate selection. Social Biology, 15, 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, L. (2011). Evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory and universal gender differences in cognition and behavior. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Epstein, E., & Guttman, R. (1984). Mate selection in man: Evidence, theory, and outcome. Social Biology, 31, 243–278.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Law Smith, M. J., Moore, F. R., DeBruine, L. M., Cornwell, R. E., et al. (2006). Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 215–222.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenigstein, A., & Preston, M. (2007). The desired number of sexual partners as a function of gender, sexual risks, and the meaning of ‘ideal’. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 89–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, B., Brewer, G., Fehl, K., & Neave, N. (2007). Instrumentality and lifetime number of sexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 747–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science, 20, 1290–1295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frisby, B. N., Dillow, M. R., Gaughan, S., & Norlund, J. (2010). Flirtatious communication: An experimental examination of perceptions of social-sexual communication motivated by evolutionary forces. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1985). Sex differences in type of extramarital involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1101–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, H., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2004). Gender differences in affective responses to sexual rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 395–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gowaty, P. A. (1992). Evolutionary biology and feminism. Human Nature, 3, 217–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greitemeyer, T. (2005). Receptivity to sexual offers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status, physical attractiveness, and intimacy of the offer. Personal Relationships, 12, 373–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hald, G. M. (2006). Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 577–585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannagan, R. J. (2008). Gender political behavior: A Darwinian feminist approach. Sex Roles, 59, 465–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannagan, R. J. (2011). One species, two sexes, and politics by other means [Review of the book Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences, by D.C. Geary]. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Hansen, G. L. (1987). Extradyadic relations during courtship. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 382–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. R. (2010). Menstrual cycle and facial preferences reconsidered. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick, S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Foote, M. J., & Foote, F. H. (1985). Gender differences in sexual attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1630–1642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. S. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions of women’s sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: An application and extension of cognitive valence theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. M. K. (1993). Gender differences in casual sex and AIDS prevention: A survey of dating bars. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrdy, S. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ilardi, S. S., Jacobson, J. D., Lehman, K. A., Stites, B. A., Karwoski, L., Stroupe, N.N., et al. (2007, November). Therapeutic lifestyle change for depression: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy, Philadelphia.

  • Jackson, L. A. (1992). Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological and sociocultural perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokela, M., Rotkirch, A., Rickard, I. J., Pettay, J., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 906–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. C., & Barlow, D. H. (1990). Self-reported frequency of sexual urges, fantasies and masturbatory fantasies in heterosexual males and females. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 269–279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, O. D., & Goldsmith, T. H. (2005). Law and Behavioral Biology. Columbia Law Review, 105, 405–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koukounas, E., & McCabe, M. (1997). Sexual and emotional variables influencing sexual response to erotica. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 221–230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, R., & Morrison, J. (1967). People are strange [Recorded by The Doors]. On Strange Days [record]. Hollywood, CA: Elektra.

  • Lalumiere, M. L., Harris, G. T., Quinsey, V. L., & Rice, M. E. (2005). The causes of rape. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A., & Samson, C. (1988). Age, gender and adultery. The British Journal of Sociology, 39, 409–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469–496.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., Bailey, M. J., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liesen, L. (2010). Feminists, fear not evolutionary theory, but remain very cautious of evolutionary psychology [Review of the book Who’s afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory, by G. Vandermassen] Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2007). Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 52, 633–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences, and evolutionary theory. The Journal of Communication, 46, 8–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15, 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBurney, D. H., Zapp, D. J., & Streeter, S. A. (2005). Preferred number of sexual partners: Tails of distributions and tales of mating systems. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 271–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, M. P. (1987). Desired and experienced levels of premarital affection and sexual intercourse during dating. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikach, S. M., & Bailey, J. M. (1999). What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. M., & Latimer, W. W. (2009). Gender differences in high risk sexual behaviors and injection practices associated with perceived HIV risk among injection drug users. AIDS Education and Prevention, 21, 384–394.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murnen, S. K., & Stockton, M. (1997). Gender and self-reported sexual arousal in response to sexual stimuli: A meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 37, 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murstein, B. (1986). Paths to marriage. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Njus, D. M., & Bane, C. M. H. (2009). Religious identification as a moderator of evolved sexual strategies of men and women. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 546–557.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ostovich, J. M., & Sabini, J. (2004). How are sociosexuality, sex drive, and lifetime number of sexual partners related? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1255–1266.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. H. (2007). Persistent misunderstandings of inclusive fitness and kin selection: Their ubiquitous appearance in social psychology textbooks. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 860–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J., & Burkley, M. (2009). Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1016–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The causalities of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, F. A. (1991). Secular trends in human sex ratios: Their influence on individual and family behavior. Human Nature, 2, 271–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, W. C., Putch-Bhagavatula, A., & Miller, L. C. (2010). Are men and women really that different? Examining some of Sexual Strategies theory (SST) key assumptions about sex-distinct mating mechanisms. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 264–271.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perilloux, C., Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2006). The psychology of sexual victimization: Perceived costs and strategies of prevention. Paper presented at the 4th Annual SPSP, Evolutionary Psychology Pre-Conference, Palm Springs, CA.

  • Perilloux, H. K., Webster, G. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2010). Signals of genetic quality and maternal investment capacity: The dynamic effects of fluctuating asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio on men’s ratings of women’s attractiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, P. B., Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T. J., Swan, L., Lawrence, A. W., Jr., Smith, M. B., et al. (2010). Aligning Mars and Venus: the social construction and instability of gender differences in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Perusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, J., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2002). Understanding domestic violence against women: Using evolutionary psychology to extend the feminist functional analysis. Violence and Victims, 17, 255–264.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M., Simmons, L.W., & Rhodes, G. (2009). Preferences across the menstrual cycle for masculinity and symmetry in photographs of male faces and bodies. PloS One, 4, e4138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Purnine, D. M., Carey, M. P., Jorgensen, R. S., & Randall, S. (1994). Gender differences regarding preferences for specific heterosexual practices. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 20, 271–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C. (1998a). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C. (1998b). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9, 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, S. C., Havlicek, J., Flegr, J., Hruskova, M., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., et al. (2004). Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, B. (Supplement), S1–S3.

  • Roese, N. J., Pennington, G. L., Coleman, J., Janicki, M., Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex differences in regret: All for love or some for lust? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 770–780.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rokach, A. (1990). Content analysis of sexual fantasies of males and females. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 124, 427–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roney, J. R., Simmons, Z. L., & Gray, P. B. (2010). Changes in estradiol predict within-women shifts in attraction to facial cues of men’s testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.10.010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowatt, W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Associations between religious orientation and varieties of sexual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 455–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, C., & Symons, D. (2001). Warrior lovers: Erotic fiction, evolution, and female sexuality. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005a). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005b). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 258–291). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005c). Is short-term mating the maladaptive result of insecure attachment? A test of competing evolutionary perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 747–768.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., Bennett, K. L., et al. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Angleiter, A., Ault, L., Austers, I., et al. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person’s partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 560–584.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-enhancement and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185–1204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 894–917.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Couden, A., & Baker, M. (2001). Sex, temporal context, and romantic desire: An experimental evaluation of Sexual Strategies Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 833–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15, 643–649.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schützwohl, A., Fuchs, A., McKibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). How willing are you to accept sexual requests from slightly unattractive to exceptionally attractive imagined requestors? Human Nature, 20, 282–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigal, J., Gibbs, M. S., Adams, B., & Derfler, R. (1988). The effect of romantic and nonromantic films on perception of female friendly and seductive behavior. Sex Roles, 19, 545–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, I., Choi, J., & Peters, M. (2007). On the universality of sex-related spatial competencies. Archives of Human Sexuality, 36, 261–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D., & Singh, D. (2011). Shape and significance of feminine beauty: An evolutionary perspective. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breast, and hips: Role of judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology & Sociobiology, 16, 483–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiler, A. P. (2010). Sexual Strategies Theory: Built for the short term or the long term? Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Smith, C. A., Konik, J., & Tuve, M. V. (2010). In search of looks, status, or something else? Partner preferences among butch and femme lesbians and heterosexual men and women. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Smuts, B. B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, G. B., & Margolis, R. L. (1983). Marital separation and extramarital sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, E. A., Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Sex differences and similarities in preferred mating arrangements. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7, 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surbey, M. K., & Conohan, C. D. (2000). Willingness to engage in casual sex: The role of parental qualities and perceived risk of aggression. Human Nature, 11, 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, L. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–342). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylwester, K., & Pawlowski, B. (2010). Daring to be darling: Attractiveness of risk takers as partners in long- and short-term sexual relationships. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1987). If we’re all Darwinians, what’s the fuss about? In C. Crawford, D. Krebs, & M. Smith (Eds.), Sociobiology and psychology (pp. 121–146). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. (2010). The “problem of number” revisited: The relative contributions of psychosocial, experiential, and evolutionary factors to the desired number of sexual partners. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. (2000). A natural history of rape. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). Psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., & Wasserman, T. H. (1995). Low investment copulation: sex difference in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 25–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tybur, J. M., Miller, G. F., & Gangestad, S. W. (2007). Testing the controversy: An empirical examination of adaptationists’ attitudes towards politics and science. Human Nature, 18, 313–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermassen, G. (2005). Who’s afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating feminism and evolutionary theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermassen, G. (2010). Evolution and rape: A feminist Darwinian perspective. Sex Roles, this issue.

  • Voracek, M., Fisher, M. L., Hofhansl, A., Rekkas, P. V., & Ritthammer, N. (2006). 'I find you to be very attractive…' Biases in compliance estimates to sexual offers. Psicothema, 18, 384–391.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voracek, M., Hofhansl, A., & Fisher, M. L. (2005). Clark and Hatfield’s evidence of women’s low receptivity to male strangers’ sexual offers revisited. Psychological Reports, 97, 11–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2010). Avuncular tendencies and the evolution of male androphilia in Fa’afafine. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 821–830.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W., & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, R. R. (2003). Applying contemporary statistical techniques. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C. (1975). Sex and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Mesnick, S. L. (1997). An empirical test of the bodyguard hypothesis. In P. A. Gowaty (Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology: Boundaries, intersections, and frontiers. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youn, G. (2006). Subjective sexual arousal in response to erotica: Effects of gender, guided fantasy, erotic stimulus, and duration of exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 87–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zerjal, T., Xue, Y., Bertorelle, G., Wells, R. S., Bao, W., Zhu, S., et al. (2003). The genetic legacy of the Mongols. American Journal of Human Genetics, 72, 717–721.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to express deep thanks to colleagues who commented on previous versions of this paper: Laith Al-Shawaf, Jaime Confer, Judith Easton, Irene Frieze, Cari Goetz, Cristine Legare, David Lewis, Carin Perilloux, Christine Smith, and Griet Vandermassen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    David Michael Buss

  2. Bradley University, Peoria, IL, USA

    David P. Schmitt

Authors
  1. David Michael Buss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David P. Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Michael Buss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buss, D.M., Schmitt, D.P. Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism. Sex Roles 64, 768–787 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation