Feminism and Evolutionary Psychology: Moving Forward
- 3.3k Downloads
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).
KeywordsGender Sex differences Evolution Feminist psychology Sexual selection Social roles
The authors thank Christine Harris for her helpful contributions to an earlier draft of this article.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Zahidi, S. (2011). Global gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2010.pdf.
- 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.
- Huber, J. (2007). On the origins of gender inequality. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
- 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
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1240.
- Smith, C. A., & Konik, J. A. (Eds.) (2011). Feminist reappraisals of evolutionary psychology. [Special issue]. Sex Roles, 64(9–10).Google Scholar
- Smith, C. A., & Konik, J. A. (Eds.) (2013). Commentaries on the special issue: Feminist reappraisals of evolutionary psychology [special issue]. Sex Roles.Google Scholar
- Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Weisstein, N. (1968). Kinder, Kirche, Kuche as scientific law: Psychology constructs the female. Boston: New England Press.Google Scholar
- Whyte, M. K. (1978). The status of women in preindustrial societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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