Sex Roles

, Volume 69, Issue 9–10, pp 549–556 | Cite as

Feminism and Evolutionary Psychology: Moving Forward

  • Alice H. EaglyEmail author
  • Wendy Wood
Original Article


The Special Issue on feminism and evolutionary psychology published by Sex Roles (Smith and Konik 2011) has elicited responses that advance understanding of the debate between evolutionary psychology and feminist perspectives concerning the origins of similarities and differences in the behavior of women and men (Smith and Konik 2013). The further challenges to evolutionary psychology mounted in these responses suggest that the Special Issue has intensified the debate more that it has resolved it. Moving forward requires that feminist psychologists not only add to the considerable body of empirical evidence that challenges evolutionary psychology but also produce alternative evolutionary theories that transcend the nature-nurture controversy that underlies the current debate. To this end, we refer readers to our biosocial constructionist theory in which culture and biology are intertwined in both distal evolutionary processes that shaped human psychology and proximal mechanisms that underlie differences and similarities in male and female behavior (Wood and Eagly 2012).


Gender Sex differences Evolution Feminist psychology Sexual selection Social roles 


Author Notes

The authors thank Christine Harris for her helpful contributions to an earlier draft of this article.


  1. Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35. doi: 10.1080/00224490309552164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastardi, A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Ross, L. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 22, 731–732. doi: 10.1177/0956707611406447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011). The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. PNAS, 108(Supplement 2), 10918–10925. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100290108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, R., Scott, I. M., Maklakov, A. A., Kasumovic, M. M., Clair, A. P., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2011). National income inequality predicts women’s preferences for masculinized faces better than health does. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 278, 810–812. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broude, G. J., & Greene, S. J. (1976). Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology, 15, 409–429. doi: 10.2307/3773308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, G. R., Laland, K., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Bateman’s principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 297–304. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, G. R., Dickins, T. E., Sear, R., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 366, 313–324. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Browne, K. R. (1998). An evolutionary account of women's workplace status. Managerial and Decision Economics, 19, 427–440. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1468(199811/12)19:7/8<427::AID-MDE898>3.0.CO;2-H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768–787. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 2405–2410. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Crawford, J. R., & Welling, L. L. M. (2011). Further evidence for regional variation in women’s masculinity preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 278, 813–814. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.54.6.408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles, 64, 758–767. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 340–357. doi: 10.1177/1745691613484767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S. M., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. C. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist, 67, 211–230. doi: 10.1037/a0027260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2007). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 993–1011. doi: 10.1037/a0024061.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., Hunt, L. L. (2013). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0032432.
  23. Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. M. (2013). The application of biological, evolutionary, and sociocultural frameworks to issues of gender in introductory psychology textbooks. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0289-9.
  24. Farris, C. A., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women's sexual intent. Psychological Science, 19, 348–354. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Felson, R. B. (1997). Anger, aggression, and violence in love triangles. Violence and Victims, 12, 345–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher, T. D. (2013). Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The bogus pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not non-sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 68, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0266-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frieze, I. H., & Chrisler, J. C. (2011). Editorial policy on the use of the terms “sex” and “gender”. Sex Roles, 64, 789–790. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9988-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frisby, B. N., Dillow, M. R., Gaughan, S., & Nordlund, J. (2011). Flirtatious communication: An experimental examination of perceptions of social-sexual communication motivated by evolutionary forces. Sex Roles, 64, 682–694. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9864-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gildersleeve, K., DeBruine, L., Haselton, M. G., Frederick, D. A., Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I. (2013). Shifts in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle: A critique of Harris (2011) and Harris (2012). Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0273-4.
  31. Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177–185. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gowaty, P. A. (2003). Sexual natures: How feminism changed evolutionary biology. Signs, 28, 901–921. doi: 10.1086/345324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greene, B. (2010). 2009 Carolyn Wood Sherif Award Address: Riding Trojan horses from symbolism to structural change: In feminist psychology, context matters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 443–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01594.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris, C. R. (2011). Menstrual cycle and facial preferences reconsidered. Sex Roles, 64, 669–681. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9772-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harris, C. R. (2012). Shifts in masculinity preferences across the menstrual cycle: Still not there. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0229-0.
  37. Harris, C. R., Chabot, A., Mickes, L. (2013). Shifts in methodology and theory in menstrual cycle research on attraction. Sex Roles, this issue.Google Scholar
  38. Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Zahidi, S. (2011). Global gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from
  39. Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 363–390. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hrdy, S. B. (2000), The optimal number of fathers: Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female mate preferences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 907, 75–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06617.x.
  41. Huber, J. (2007). On the origins of gender inequality. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Hyde, J. S., Mezulis, A. H., & Abramson, L. Y. (2008). The ABCs of depression: Integrating affective, biological, and cognitive models to explain the emergence of the gender difference in depression. Psychological Review, 115, 291–313. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (in press). Meta-analysis of research in social and personality psychology. In C. M. Judd & H. T. Reis (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2007). Do advertised preferences predict the behavior of speed daters? Personal Relationships, 14, 623–632. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00175.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liesen, L. T. (2012). Feminists need to look beyond evolutionary psychology for insights into human reproductive strategies: A commentary. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0153-3.
  49. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 69–70. doi: 10.1007/BF01173636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morton, T. A., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2006). We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming science. Political Psychology, 27, 823–838. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00539.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664. doi: 10.1037/a0012966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nier, J. A., & Campbell, S. D. (2012). Two outsiders’ view on feminism and evolutionary psychology: An opportune time for adversarial collaboration. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0154-2.
  53. Pedersen, W. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A., & Miller, L. C. (2011). Are men and women really that different? Examining some of Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)’s key assumptions about sex-distinct mating mechanisms. Sex Roles, 64, 629–643. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9811-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Perrin, P. B., Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T. J., Swan, L. K., Lawrence, A. W., Jr., Smith, M. B., . . . Mejia-Millan, C. M. (2011). Aligning mars and venus: The social construction and instability of gender differences in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 64, 613–628. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9804-4.Google Scholar
  55. 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. doi: 10.1037/a0017504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skitka, L. J., Mullen, E., Griffin, T., Hutchinson, S., & Chamberlin, B. (2002). Dispositions, scripts, or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in explanations for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 470–487. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.470.
  57. Smith, C. A., & Konik, J. A. (Eds.) (2011). Feminist reappraisals of evolutionary psychology. [Special issue]. Sex Roles, 64(9–10).Google Scholar
  58. Smith, C. A., & Konik, J. A. (Eds.) (2013). Commentaries on the special issue: Feminist reappraisals of evolutionary psychology [special issue]. Sex Roles.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, C. A., Konik, J. A., & Tuve, M. V. (2011b). In search of looks, status, or something else? Partner preferences among butch and femme lesbians and heterosexual men and women. Sex Roles, 64, 658–668. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9861-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  61. Tate, C. C. (2011). The “problem of number” revisited: The relative contributions of psychosocial, experiential, and evolutionary factors to the desired number of sexual partners. Sex Roles, 64, 644–657. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9774-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tate, C. C. (2012). Addressing conceptual confusions about evolutionary theorizing: How and why evolutionary psychology and feminism do not oppose each other. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0226-3.
  63. Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.34.11.1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Vugt, M. (2012). The male warrior hypothesis: The evolutionary psychology of intergroup conflict, tribal aggression, and warfare. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war (pp. 291–300). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638. doi: 10.1177/1745691612463078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weisstein, N. (1968). Kinder, Kirche, Kuche as scientific law: Psychology constructs the female. Boston: New England Press.Google Scholar
  68. Weisstein, N. (1971). Psychology constructs the female; or, the fantasy life of the male psychologist (with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and the male anthropologist). Journal of Social Education, 35, 362–373. doi: 10.1177/0959353593032005.Google Scholar
  69. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whyte, M. K. (1978). The status of women in preindustrial societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.699.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629–667). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  73. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  74. Wood, W., Kressel, L., Joshi, P., & Louie, B. (in press). Meta-analysis of menstrual cycle effects on women’s mate preferences. Emotion Review.Google Scholar
  75. Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. (2003). Making gender comparisons more meaningful: A call for more attention to social context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 281–290. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.00108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 1176–1185. doi: 10.1177/0956797612441004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations