484767

research-article2013
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691613484767Eagly, WoodThe Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges

Perspectives on Psychological Science

The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years XX(X) 1­–18

© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
of Challenges in Understanding the sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1745691613484767
Psychology of Gender pps.sagepub.com

Alice H. Eagly1 and Wendy Wood2

1
Northwestern University and 2University of Southern California

Abstract
Nature–nurture debates continue to be highly contentious in the psychology of gender despite the common recognition
that both types of causal explanations are important. In this article, we provide a historical analysis of the vicissitudes
of nature and nurture explanations of sex differences and similarities during the quarter century since the founding of
the Association for Psychological Science. We consider how the increasing use of meta-analysis helped to clarify sex
difference findings if not the causal explanations for these effects. To illustrate these developments, this article describes
socialization and preferences for mates as two important areas of gender research. We also highlight developing
research trends that address the interactive processes by which nature and nurture work together in producing sex
differences and similarities. Such theorizing holds the promise of better science as well as a more coherent account of
the psychology of women and men that should prove to be more influential with the broader public.

Keywords
psychology of gender, sex differences and similarities, nature and nurture, meta-analysis

Is nature or nurture the stronger influence on sex differ- pairing its title and author (conducted March 29, 2013).
ences and similarities? If asked, most psychologists would Written in part from the perspective of the author’s own
probably reply that the question is misguided. Obviously, career decisions, the article cites mainly the opinions
both are influential. Yet, as we show in this article, expressed by other women with highly successful careers
nature–nurture debates have remained highly conten- (e.g., Sheryl Sandberg, Elizabeth Warren).
tious in the psychology of gender, and contemporary Although Slaughter’s presentation is highly engaging,
researchers only sometimes integrate the two causal many of the topics that she covered could have been
influences. More commonly, researchers focus on one linked to extensive psychological research (e.g., maternal
type of cause to the exclusion of the other or treat them employment, stereotype threat, work–life balance). When
as competing explanations. In analyzing the state of these touching on the key issue of causes of the parental divi-
nature–nurture debates in psychological science, we sion of childcare responsibilities, Slaughter opted for her
invoke the terms in their broadest meaning, whereby personal insight that, despite the influence of social
nature refers to biological structures and processes and expectations, maternal instinct (“a maternal imperative,”
nurture refers to sociocultural influences. p. 92) is critical. Even though Slaughter’s expertise is in
There is no doubt that these issues are important and international relations, it is fair to ask why scientific psy-
absorbing to the general public as well as scientists. chology did not enter into her analysis. Moreover,
However, despite the immense amount of psychological Slaughter’s approach is not unusual: Authors who write
research on gender, often it does not inform public dis- about the engaging gender questions of the day often fail
course on gender issues. For example, 2012’s most widely to ground their answers in psychological research. Why?
discussed journalistic treatment of gender issues is Anne-
Marie Slaughter’s article “Why Women Still Can’t Have It
Corresponding Author:
All,” which appeared in the July–August issue of The Alice Eagly, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029
Atlantic. Evidence of the article’s success lies in the Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60201
approximately 370,000 hits produced by a Google search E-mail: [email protected]
2 Eagly, Wood

In this article, we argue that these failures are due in part instinct (e.g., Galton, 1907; McDougall, 1923; Thorndike,
to the conflicting messages that scientists convey to the 1906). In keeping with their gender-as-nurture message,
public about the psychology of women and men. feminist psychologists also advocated separating sex as a
In this article, we analyze changes in psychologists’ biological influence from gender as a sociocultural influ-
thinking about nature and nurture by tracing the psychol- ence (e.g., Unger, 1979). In feminist research, gender
ogy of gender from the founding of the Association for then received far more emphasis than sex, as illustrated
Psychological Science in 1988 to the present day. We thus by Bem’s (1974, 1981) studies demonstrating that gender
consider the last quarter century of research. Though we identity, as an individual difference, predicted sex-related
recognize the highly varied content of research in basic behavior better than the dichotomous variable of sex.
and applied domains, we focus this article on the central The 1980s marked the end of this relative supremacy
issue of nature and nurture causation of sex differences of nurture explanations of the psychology of women and
and similarities in traits, abilities, behavioral tendencies, men and the beginning of a powerful reassertion of
and attitudes and beliefs. For researchers who address nature. Evolutionary psychologists advocated for nature
these issues, one dramatic shift in the last quarter century by emphasizing evolved, inherited dispositions in women
is the general acceptance by psychologists of meta-analysis and men, as illustrated by Buss’s research (1989) on the
as the most appropriate method for aggregating the find- mate preferences of women and men. The theoretical
ings of groups of related studies that have compared the writings of Tooby and Cosmides (1989, 1992) attracted
sexes. Although this methodological advance guides gen- attention, and Daly and Wilson’s (1983) engaging book
der researchers toward acknowledging the systematic pat- proposing evolutionary explanations of various human
terning of sex differences and similarities, resolving behaviors reached a wide audience. Although evolution-
nature–nurture causal issues remains fraught with conflict. ary theory had been applied to human behavior in the
preceding decade, labeled as sociobiology (e.g., Trivers,
Historical Trends in Research on Sex 1972; Wilson, 1975), it gained prominence mainly through
evolutionary psychology.
Differences and Similarities Another source of the rise of nature in the 1980s and
The beginning of the past quarter century marked the beyond was psychologists’ increasing efforts to apply the
end of an era in psychology with a strong tilt toward science of brain structure and hormones to the psychol-
nurture-related explanations of sex-related differences. In ogy of women and men (Hines, 1982; Hines & Green,
that period, most developmental psychologists had 1991; Notman & Nadelson, 1991). Although skeptics
emphasized socialization and learning as important abounded, especially among feminists (Bleier, 1991),
causes (Bandura, 1977; Kagan, 1964; Mischel, 1966), and research in this area proceeded at a rapid pace. The
social and personality psychologists had emphasized ste- hypothesis that prenatal and early postnatal androgens
reotypes, norms, identities, and roles that support gender affect brain structure and subsequent behavior had roots
differentiation in cognition and social behavior (e.g., in earlier research (e.g., Money & Ehrhardt, 1972) and
Bem, 1974; Deaux, 1984; Eagly, 1983; Spence & Helmreich, became well-accepted in the 1990s (Collaer & Hines,
1978; Williams & Best, 1982). Despite this emphasis on 1995). Popular themes included sex differences in the
nurture, Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) influential review relative dominance of the cerebral hemispheres and in
considered both biological factors and socialization as the size of the corpus callosum, which connects the cere-
potentially causal and raised questions about the consis- bral hemispheres (e.g., Davatzikos & Resnick, 1998).
tency and quality of the evidence on sex differences and Researchers also focused attention on the ways that hor-
similarities. mones activate behaviors, especially testosterone’s rela-
The feminist movement was an important influence tions to dominance and aggression (e.g., Mazur & Booth,
on theories of gender because most psychologists who 1998; Sherwin, 1988). Somewhat later, oxytocin became a
were allied with the wave of feminism that began in the focus of research concentrating on its relation to sex dif-
1960s were firmly in the nurture camp (Eagly, Eaton, ferences in stress-induced responses and bonding (Taylor
Rose, Riger, & McHugh, 2012). Feminist psychologists et al., 2000).
argued that many scientists had wrongly ascribed the This rise of nature explanations of sex-related differ-
behaviors of women to their intrinsic nature and failed to ences in the 1980s and beyond did not staunch the flow
recognize the causes embedded in the social context of of research favoring nurture explanations. Instead, psy-
women’s lives (e.g., Weisstein, 1968). In vividly making chologists exploring the effects of social experience on
this point, Shields (1975) challenged the gender-as-nature men and women developed many new research ques-
views of Darwin (1871) and other earlier writers who tions and methods. Large amounts of research addressed
portrayed women as inherently childlike, passive, intel- stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), ambivalent
lectually deficient, and motivated mainly by maternal and hostile sexism (Glick & Fiske, 2001), implicit gender
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 3

stereotypes and attitudes (Rudman, Greenwald, & 1997. The public thus appears to be as divided in their
McGhee, 2001), backlash from gender-incongruent favored explanations as the expert scientists.
behavior (Rudman & Glick, 1999), workplace discrimina- Before delving into specific illustrations of the yin and
tion (Heilman & Parks-Stamm, 2007), and children’s yang of nature and nurture explanations, we describe
development of gender role knowledge (Martin, Ruble, how the science has gained from the increasing use of
& Szkrybalo, 2002). The rise of nature theories in the last meta-analysis to estimate the size and variability of sex
25 years thus occurred in the context of continuing differences. As we explain in the next section, these esti-
growth of nurture perspectives. The result is that impres- mates tend to restrain researchers from exaggerating
sive, but largely separate, streams of research currently findings or selecting only the findings that are compatible
support nature and nurture. with their favored theory.
To illustrate contemporary thinking about these two
sets of causes, consider the popular topic of spatial abil-
ity. The sex difference favoring boys and men is relatively Methodological Innovations in
robust, especially on tasks requiring the mental rotation the Study of Sex Differences and
of three-dimensional objects (see meta-analysis by Voyer, Similarities: Effect Sizes and Meta-
Voyer, & Bryden, 1995). Some researchers emphasize Analysis
biological causes by, for example, relating female and
male spatial performance to their hormonal cycles (e.g., The past quarter century has seen the increasing use of
Courvoisier et al., 2013) or by claiming that observed meta-analysis and greater sophistication in interpreting
structural sex differences in the brain cause these and comparisons between women and men. Traditionally, a
other cognitive sex differences (e.g., Chou, Cheng, Chen, significant effect was taken as potentially important,
Lin, & Chu, 2011). Other researchers emphasize sociocul- whereas a nonsignificant effect was taken as unimport-
tural influences by demonstrating that, for example, the ant. Although significance testing is often sensible to rule
usual sex difference can be reduced or eliminated by out the possibility that findings reflect mere chance, such
equating male and female participants’ confidence in tests depend on statistical power. Very small effects can
their ability (Estes & Felker, 2012) or by inducing the become significant with large sample sizes. Because
belief that male superiority in performance is due not to judging findings by their statistical significance could
ability but to external causes (e.g., gender stereotyping; draw attention to small sex differences with little practi-
Moè, 2012). Thus, spatial ability illustrates a common pat- cal importance, feminist psychologists were among those
tern whereby research articles often favor nature or nur- calling for the reporting of effect sizes, which are inde-
ture explanations and acknowledge the alternative pendent of statistical significance (e.g., Lott, 1985).
minimally or not at all. Although a few research projects Effect sizes, as a statistically appropriate metric for
have taken both nature and nurture into account (e.g., comparing findings across studies, are the key to judging
M. Hausmann, Schoofs, Rosenthal, & Jordan, 2009), the stability versus variability of psychological sex differ-
researchers often treat these factors as sole contending ences across studies as well as their average size. In the
causal influences on sex differences and similarities, 1980s, the development of statistical methods for analyz-
despite the popularity of the abstract principle that nature ing effect sizes across studies advanced the sophistication
and nurture interact. of reviews of the female–male comparisons provided by
Given the development of separate nature and nurture thousands of research reports (Glass, McGaw, & Smith,
currents of thought about sex-related differences in the 1981; Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
past few decades, any recent survey would reveal com-
peting factions of psychologists who promote mainly one Application of meta-analysis to the
or the other explanation. In this respect, psychologists
psychology of gender
mirror public opinion in the United States. In response to
a question asking people to choose “the main reason that Meta-analyses comparing the sexes proliferated due to
men and women are different,” a 1997 nationally repre- the considerable interest in the psychology of gender in
sentative poll found that 53% endorsed nurture, 31% the wake of the feminist movement and due to the sim-
nature, 13% both, and 3% were not sure (National plicity of computing effect sizes that compare two groups.
Broadcasting Company, 1998). The continued visibility of Early meta-analyses estimated sex differences in influ-
evolutionary psychology and neuroscience in recent enceability (Cooper, 1979; Eagly & Carli, 1981), accuracy
years may have increased public acceptance of nature in nonverbal communication (Hall, 1978), cognitive abili-
causes but likely not beyond the acceptance of nurture ties (Hyde, 1981), empathy (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983),
causes, given the 22% endorsement gap that existed in helping behavior (Eagly & Crowley, 1986), aggression
4 Eagly, Wood

(Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984), and group perfor- Interpreting meta-analyzed sex
mance (Wood, 1987). These reviews typically provided comparisons
evidence for overall small-to-moderate sized effects but
also considerable variability within each meta-analysis To understand how a sex difference that is small when
because some of the reviewed studies yielded large sex aggregated across many studies can mask larger differ-
differences, others small differences, and still others ences that appear in some circumstances, consider the
reversals of the overall effect. domain of risk taking. Consistent with the cultural stereo-
Meta-analyses comparing male and female social type that men exceed women in agency, which includes
behavior and cognitive performance quickly became attributes of assertiveness, dominance, and confidence,
common in Psychological Bulletin and other journals. In men take greater risks than women in a wide range of
the last 25 years, approximately 370 meta-analyses com- laboratory and other settings. However, when meta-ana-
paring the sexes have appeared in journal articles cata- lyzed by Byrnes, Miller, and Schafer (1999), this overall
logued by PsycINFO (identified by combining the index effect yielded a standardized mean difference (d) of only
term “human sex differences” with “meta-analysis” and 0.13 (corresponding to a correlation between sex and
“journal article” codes for the years 1987 to 2013). Highly risk taking of approximately rpb = .065). Such small differ-
cited reviews pertained to, for example, math perfor- ences are consistent with an underlying dimensional
mance and spatial ability (Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, structure of psychological sex differences rather than one
1990; Voyer et al., 1995), personality (Feingold, 1994), and composed of two distinct types of humans (see Carothers
leadership style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Despite the pre- & Reis, 2013).
cision of such meta-analyses in estimating the overall Despite a small average sex difference, women and
magnitude and variability of male–female comparisons, men differed more in some types of risk taking—for
this new method did not generate a quick consensus example, men were more likely than women to perform
about the importance or explanation of these effects. games of risk involving physical skills (d = 0.43). Also,
Some feminist psychologists were concerned that these evidence beyond the Byrnes et al. meta-analysis has
meta-analytic findings could be used to justify social ineq- shown that men were much more likely than women to
uities and preferred to emphasize the small overall effect perform extremely dangerous interventions, such as
sizes that these reviews often obtained (Hyde, 2005). those meriting the Carnegie Hero medal (Becker & Eagly,
Once a large number of meta-analyses comparing the 2004). However, in contrast to the overall male direction
sexes had been published, some researchers aggregated of risk taking, women did not differ from men in their
their findings to estimate the size of effects across multi- propensity to take social risks (e.g., C. R. Harris, Jenkins,
ple meta-analyzed domains of traits and behaviors. Using & Glaser, 2006) and were slightly more likely than men
this technique to describe a wide range of social psycho- to undertake risky actions such as Holocaust rescues of
logical effects, Richard, Bond, and Stokes-Zoota (2003) Jews or living kidney donation (Becker & Eagly, 2004).
reported that sex differences are somewhat smaller (d = Such inconsistencies in findings across subdomains of a
0.26) than effects averaged across social psychology as a behavioral category are common in research comparing
whole (d = 0.45). Yet, sex effects in this research were the sexes and are often theoretically meaningful, as also
comparable in magnitude to those in several founda- illustrated by analysis of the broad domain of prosocial
tional research areas in social psychology such as attribu- behavior (see Eagly, 2009).
tion (d = 0.28) and social influence (d = 0.26). And A meta-analysis always presents an overall average sex
research has demonstrated that even small differences comparison based on all of the available studies. This
can be important. The cumulative impact of small effects mean effect size often is not very informative, not only
that occur repeatedly over occasions and situations can because it may mask highly inconsistent effects, but also
be considerable and is often masked by single-shot stud- because it could be explained through theoretical per-
ies that capture only a small slice of behavior (e.g., spectives highlighting either nature or nurture. For exam-
Abelson, 1985). Furthermore, sex differences may appear ple, within a meta-analysis of a wide range of mathematics
small when aggregated across many meta-analyses performances, the overall finding of boys performing
because the aggregated estimates are not theory driven somewhat better than girls on visual spatial skills in stan-
and do not distinguish between the domains that theo- dardized tests across 49 nations (Else-Quest, Hyde, &
retically should or should not yield sex differences. Even Linn, 2010) invites explanation. This effect could be due
individual meta-analyses typically aggregate findings to selection pressures that favored such skills in men
across a broad behavioral category—sometimes collaps- throughout human evolutionary history and/or to differ-
ing across contexts and behaviors for which sex differ- ential contemporary social expectations and experiences
ences are more or less likely. (e.g., video games). Because many sex differences are
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 5

compatible with both nature and nurture accounts, an Along with predicted variation in sex differences,
overall meta-analytic effect generally provides little sometimes the absence of variation in meta-analytic find-
explanatory insight. ings is taken as support for a particular explanation. In
particular, researchers may consider biological theories
more plausible to the extent that effect sizes are consis-
Using meta-analyses to test theories of tent across studies and any moderating factors have little
nature and nurture influence. For example, as Papadatou-Pastou, Martin,
The variability that sex differences show across studies Munafò, and Jones (2008) argued, “showing that a sex dif-
does provide an avenue to testing explanatory theories. ference in handedness is present in every comparison . . .
As the statistical procedures that enable testing meta- provides support for the theories that explain handedness
analytic models have become more sophisticated (see with biological factors pertinent to sexual differentiation”
Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009), meta- (p. 691). In this view, uniformity of the direction of the
analysts have routinely examined the moderation of sex sex difference suggests biological causes, notwithstanding
differences by settings, response formats, participant that the magnitude of this difference shifts with cultural
populations, and many other variables. The validity of a contexts, as Papadatou-Pastou et al. also demonstrated.
theory depends on how well it can identify factors that To illustrate in more detail the ways in which nature-
accentuate a sex difference and others that attenuate it. If, and nurture-oriented theories of gender have developed
for example, a sex difference reflects societal expecta- in the past couple of decades, we trace these perspec-
tions, then its magnitude should vary with the presence tives in two important areas of gender research: socializa-
of others. Demonstrating this influence, Eagly and tion and mate preferences. In these domains, researchers
Crowley’s (1986) meta-analysis on helping behavior from the nature and nurture camps have competed for
revealed that men were more likely than women to offer explaining the same phenomena. This competition is less
help to strangers, especially when an audience was pres- apparent in many other domains of gender research,
ent, making normative expectations for men’s greater such as sex-linked visual-spatial abilities, in which
helping more salient. researchers have tended to emphasize one account and
Moderation by social context also has emerged in disregard the other.
meta-analytic tests that track changes in psychological
sex differences over time. In many meta-analytic reviews Examples of the Yin and Yang of
of agentic behaviors and attributes, smaller and some-
Nature and Nurture
times nonsignificant sex differences have been found in
more recent studies, due largely to women having Debates about nature and nurture explanations of sex-
become more similar to men in agentic tendencies (e.g., related differences have been especially intense with
Byrnes et al., 1999; see Wood & Eagly, 2012, for review). respect to (a) the developmental research area of social-
Because these changes in traits and behaviors have ization as an influence on sex-differentiated behavior and
occurred in the past 50 years, their interpretation requires (b) the social psychological topic of the mate preferences
theories that assume flexible regulation of behavior in of men and women. Despite nature–nurture debates,
response to changing social contexts (e.g., fall of birth meta-analyses have been important in clarifying findings
rates, entry of women into paid employment, see R. in both of these areas of research.
Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2011).
Some biologically oriented theories also predict varia-
Socialization
tion across contexts. For example, evolutionary psychol-
ogists anticipate that contextual factors such as sex ratios Socialization, understood as a “process by which indi-
and reproductive stress promote variation in mating pref- viduals acquire social skills or other characteristics neces-
erences, although they also contend that this variation sary to function effectively in society or in a particular
itself reflects genetically preprogrammed strategies that group” (American Psychological Association, 2013), is a
are differentially evoked by context (e.g., Schmitt, 2005). prominent nurture explanation of sex differences. The
Also, contextual variation of sex differences would be theme also has engaged the advocates of nature, who
expected in developmental evolutionary models because often discount the influence of socialization. It is thus not
experiences, especially during maturation, are theorized surprising that the explanatory viability of socialization
to regulate synaptic connectivity, neural circuitry, and has fluctuated over the years in psychological science. For
gene expression and thereby affect brain structure and the past quarter century, the nature–nurture dynamic was
organization, which, in turn, affects behavior (Lickliter & defined in part by developmentalists’ gradual retreat from
Honeycutt, 2003). an overriding emphasis on parental socialization, which
6 Eagly, Wood

was a legacy of psychoanalytic theory (e.g., Freud, 1927) experience of pleasure from high-intensity activities. In
and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; Mischel, 1966). contrast, girls’ effortful control emerges in the self-regula-
Thus, from the 1960s onward, developmental psycholo- tory skills of greater attention span, ability to focus and
gists had noted the considerable inconsistencies in the shift attention, and inhibitory control, and it includes their
evidence that parents treat boys and girls differently (e.g., greater perceptual sensitivity and experience of pleasure
Huston, 1983; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Sears, Rau, & from low-intensity activities. In meta-analytic estimates
Alpert, 1965). based on studies analyzing these two dimensions as mul-
In the last 25 years, developmental psychologists have tiattribute factors, these sex differences were large on
increasingly recognized the complexity of nurture influ- effortful control (d = −1.01) and moderate on surgency
ences (Leaper, 2013). Researchers have documented a (d = 0.55). Such research lent credence to nature interpre-
wide range of such influences, including that of peer tations of sex-differentiated child behavior.
groups ( J. R. Harris, 1995; Maccoby, 1998) and teachers Also furthering the plausibility of nature interpreta-
(e.g., Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996), and many have tions of sex differences and similarities were the results
emphasized interactions between children’s traits, devel- of a meta-analysis by Lytton and Romney (1991), which
opmental processes, and sociocultural contexts (e.g., produced little evidence that parents differentially
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Concerning the processes encourage broadly defined psychological attributes such
through with socialization operates, many studies have as aggressiveness in sons and daughters. Although evolu-
addressed the formation of gender cognitions through tionary psychologists have taken this meta-analysis as
which children regulate their own behavior (Bussey & evidence that socialization matters little in child develop-
Bandura, 1992; Ruble & Martin, 1998). Moreover, develop- ment (e.g., Campbell, 2012), nurture-oriented develop-
mentalists also recognize the social interactive processes mentalists have countered such claims by moving beyond
of emulation and conformity (e.g., Wiese & Freund, 2011) the simple socialization theories that thrived in the 1950s
as well as the pervasive nonconscious processes whereby and 1960s.
children absorb cultural stereotypes from their social con-
text, including media (Signorielli, 2012). The scientific The resurgence of nurture explanations of child
understanding of socialization has thus become consider- behavior. With increased understanding of the com-
ably more complex during the past quarter century. plexity of socialization, researchers now take account of
variables that can modulate the effects of parental behav-
The rise of nature interpretations of child behav- ior. Research guided by such theories has discovered sex-
ior.  Along with the growth of nurture theories in the last differentiated socialization practices within narrower
quarter century, the rise of nature interpretations of child categories of behavior, critical periods in development,
behavior reflects in part the erosion of blank slate notions naturalistic settings, and varying family contexts (see
of children. Thus, even much earlier, Bell (1968) argued reviews by Blakemore, Berenbaum, & Liben, 2009;
that research supported “the effects of congenital factors McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). For example, moth-
in children on parent behavior” (p. 81) and pointed out ers tend to use more supportive speech and talk more
that the direction of causation between parental and with daughters than sons (see meta-analysis by Leaper,
child attributes is ambiguous in correlational data. Also, Anderson, & Sanders, 1998), and parents grant less
research had produced evidence of robust, early-emerg- autonomy to their daughters than their sons and discour-
ing sex differences in temperament, which are generally age their physical risk taking (e.g., Morrongiello & Hogg,
understood as broad biologically influenced tendencies 2004; Pomerantz & Ruble, 1998). Moreover, the Lytton
that are precursors of adult personality. Despite progress and Romney (1991) meta-analysis documented parents’
in investigating biological causes of these sex differences differential treatment of girls and boys in one important
(Berenbaum & Beltz, 2011; Berenbaum, Blakemore, & domain: Parents encourage and expect gender-typical
Beltz, 2011), the mechanisms underlying them have behavior in play and household chores and discourage
remained unclear (e.g., Fine, 2010; Jordan-Young, 2010). gender-atypical activities (d = 0.43), thereby creating
For example, the hypothesized effects of prenatal andro- affordances for conventionally gender-typed behaviors
gens on humans’ brain lateralization have not received (e.g., nurturing for girls).
consistent support (e.g., see meta-analysis by Pfannkuche, Even when evidence of differential treatment of girls
Bouma, & Groothuis, 2009). and boys is established and associated with predicted sex
Whatever the specific underlying causes, even young differences in children’s behaviors, causal links can
children differ mainly on two aspects of temperament: remain uncertain. Given mutual influence between par-
surgency and effortful control (see meta-analysis by Else- ents and children as well as the possible influence of the
Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006). The greater genetic similarity of parents and children (Plomin, 1994),
surgency of boys includes motor activity, impulsivity, and the nature–nurture implications of correlational findings
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 7

can be unclear. To isolate the parent-to-child aspect humans’ evolved dispositions include the fundamental
of mutual influence, developmental psychologists have human predisposition to imitate others and engage in
occasionally relied on experiments. However, ethical social processes of emulation, collaborative learning, and
restraints essentially limit experiments manipulating teaching (Hill, Barton, & Hurtado, 2009; Meltzoff, 2007).
parental socialization to interventions designed to yield These predispositions orient children to quickly acquire
better parenting or marital relations (see Cowan & Cowan, skills and knowledge suited to the social context in which
2002). Experiments specifically targeted to explaining they live. Moreover, the long juvenile period of humans
sex-typed behavior have been conducted in school set- magnifies the importance of social learning.
tings by varying educational materials, teachers’ behav- All in all, the study of socialization is ripe for the
iors, or children’s social contexts (e.g., Banerjee & Lintern, development of more interactive models. The impressive
2000; Karniol & Gal-Disegni, 2009). For example, in an advances during the past quarter century have laid the
experiment by Hilliard and Liben (2010), teachers who groundwork for the emergence of theories that cross
did make gender salient in their classrooms produced nature–nurture boundaries.
stronger gender stereotypes among their pupils as well as
less positive attitudes toward peers of the other sex and
Mate preferences
less willingness to play with them. Quasi-experiments
have exploited changes in local environments (e.g., the The contrast between nature and nurture explanations
introduction of television in a remote Canadian town; has been drawn sharply in the study of sex differences in
Kimball, 1986) to demonstrate gender-relevant effects preferences for a mate. Historically, many researchers
such as increased stereotyping. Research using experi- have evaluated what women and men desire in their
mental methods has thus substantiated some of the causal romantic partners, but this question became prominent
pathways that link socialization to sex-differentiated out- in the late 1980s as a result of the important role of repro-
comes. Also, statistical techniques designed to estimate duction in evolutionary psychology (Buss, 1989; Kenrick,
causal relations in correlational data (e.g., longitudinal Maner, & Li, 2005). Based on the logic of sexual selection
designs, structural equation modeling) have proven suc- theory, women were predicted to invest more than men
cessful in clarifying socialization processes (e.g., in reproduction (e.g., gestation, lactation) and thus to
Simpkins, Fredericks, & Eccles, 2012). gain fitness (i.e., the ability to survive, reproduce, and
propagate their genes) from mates who support them
Possibilities for nature-nurture interactive theo- and their offspring. In this view, men, in contrast, gain
ries. Studies of socialization would benefit from more fitness from being sexually promiscuous with fertile
integrative nature and nurture approaches to develop- women.
mental processes. Possibilities abound for researchers
studying how proposed biological mechanisms interact Sex differences in promiscuity. Spurred largely by
with social influences. Such research might, for example, these predictions of evolutionary psychology, researchers
clarify interactions between early-emerging temperamen- documented a variety of ways in which men are more
tal differences and children’s subsequent experiences. promiscuous than women (see Buss & Schmitt, 2011).
For example, the tendency for parents and other social- However, the accuracy of this basic generalization about
izers to engage in more physical, rough-and tumble play sexuality has been challenged, based in part on ques-
with boys than girls (Lindzey & Mize, 2001) may emerge tions about the appropriate statistical treatment of highly
at least in part from the greater pleasure that boys experi- skewed distributions of self-reported preferences (Peder-
ence from such activities. sen, Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Miller, 2011). Moreover, spe-
Although psychologists who are partial to nature cific findings suggesting men’s greater promiscuity have
explanations continue to discount the influence of social- been increasingly linked to nurture causes—especially
ization, they occasionally recognize some very specific social norms for sexuality. For example, the classic find-
processes that fit within the larger framework of evolu- ing that men are more likely than women to agree to
tionary psychology (e.g., Campbell, 2012; Confer et al., have casual sex with a stranger (Clark & Hatfield, 1989)
2010). For example, Confer et al. acknowledged the depends on the social context and the sexual opportu-
greater efforts of parents to control the sexual behavior nity. No sex differences in interest in casual sex emerged
of their daughters than their sons, a tendency that they when the potential partner was a famous, attractive
ascribed to evolutionarily relevant principles such as pre- person or someone reputed to be sexually skilled
serving their daughter’s mate value. (Conley, 2011). Furthermore, although men report more
Advocates of sociocultural causation also would bene- diverse and earlier sexual experiences than women when
fit from broader, more integrative models acknowledging their responses might become known to others, these
the relevance of evolution to understanding socialization. sex differences in reported sexuality decreased and
One way that evolution is important to socialization is that sometimes reversed when accuracy was paramount
8 Eagly, Wood

(Alexander & Fisher, 2003). Also, the lesser selectivity of extended to women, whose greater earnings and educa-
men than women is influenced by the social norm in tion now predict greater likelihood of marriage (England
which men approach women. In a speed-dating context, & Bearak, 2012; Macunovich, 2011; Sweeney, 2002;
the physical act of approaching potential romantic part- Sweeney & Cancian, 2004). These changes over time, as
ners engendered more favorable assessments of them, well as the narrowing of the age gap at first marriages
and the sex difference in selectively disappeared when (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012), have encouraged nurture
the women approached and the men stayed put (Finkel theorists to emphasize the social construction of mate
& Eastwick, 2009). In these ways, nurture-oriented preferences to accommodate the social roles of women
researchers explain the sex difference in promiscuity and men in society.
emphasized by evolutionary psychologists. The contrast between nature and nurture predictors of
mate preferences is brought into sharp relief by the
Sex differences in partner preferences.  Sexual selec- repeated analyses, conducted by different research
tion theory also anticipates differences in the specific groups, of an innovative data set of self-reported prefer-
attributes that men and women desire in a partner, and ences in 37 cultures initially collected by Buss (1989). In
these were documented in a series of meta-analyses pub- his initial analysis of these data, Buss noted a universal
lished in the early 1990s. As summarized across question- pattern of sex differences across cultures consistent with
naire studies, women placed higher value than men on the evolutionary psychology assumption that women
attributes linked to resource provision, yielding moderate have evolved preferences for long-term mates who are
to large effect sizes for socioeconomic status (d = 0.75) older and possess resources (e.g., ambition, social sta-
and ambitiousness (d = 0.55) and smaller ones for char- tus), whereas men have evolved preferences for younger,
acter, intelligence, and humor (ds = 0.22 to 0.29; Fein- physically attractive mates.
gold, 1992), with comparable sex differences found in A decade later, Eagly and Wood (1999) reanalyzed
studies examining personal ads. Also, men valued physi- these data to evaluate the extent to which mate prefer-
cal attractiveness in interaction partners and potential ences varied with the roles of men and women, in par-
mates more than women across five different research ticular with the extent to which nations had a
paradigms, with larger sex differences in studies examin- gender-unequal division of labor in which women were
ing self-reports compared with behavioral measures (ds homemakers and men primary family providers. When
ranged from 0.32 to 0.54; Feingold, 1990). However, the sex differences in mate preferences within each society
limited time frames and the largely North American sam- were correlated with indicators of the relative status of
ples in the reviewed research did not allow for sophisti- women provided by the United Nations, the preferences
cated tests of whether, as predicted by evolutionary of men and women differed more in countries with
psychology, these preferences were universal across cul- greater gender inequality and less comparable roles
tures and time periods (see Feingold, 1992). between the sexes. That is, in less gender-equal societies
Providing evidence of social influences on mate pref- comprised of women as homemakers and men as provid-
erences, subsequent research highlighted the striking ers, women were more likely to seek an older mate with
changes that have occurred in the sexes’ preferences over resources and men were more likely to seek a younger
the last half century in industrialized societies, as women mate with homemaking and childcare skills. In addition
have entered the labor force in increasingly large num- to this influence of gender equality on the size of the sex
bers. According to nurture theories, individuals value differences, in all 37 cultures, men placed more emphasis
attributes in a partner that they believe will enable them on mates’ homemaker qualities and women placed more
to reproduce and prosper, given the current division of emphasis on mates’ economic resources. Eagly and Wood
labor in their society. In support of this assumption, men (1999) argued that this uniformity likely reflects not bio-
in more recent years increasingly prefer women with logically encoded preferences, but the lower status and
good financial prospects, education, and intelligence and power of women than men that existed in all nations in
decreasingly prefer skill at cooking and housekeeping, the sample, despite variability in the amount of this
whereas women increasingly desire men with good looks inequality.
and decreasingly desire good financial prospects, ambi- Buss and colleagues (Gangestad, Haselton, & Buss,
tion, and industriousness (Boxer, Noonan, & Whelan, in 2006) subsequently argued that evolved dispositions
press; Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001). could explain the variation in sex differences across cul-
These preferences for financial support and education tures. Specifically, they reported that the prevalence of
appear to influence actual mate choices: The traditional parasites in each culture predicted the size of several sex
tendency for men with higher earnings and higher edu- differences, including women’s greater preference for
cation to be more likely to marry has recently been men’s intelligence and men’s greater preference for
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 9

women’s attractiveness. Furthermore, nation’s gender and cultural theories of psychological sex differences fall
equality had little impact after statistically controlling for short if they fail to provide direct evidence supportive of
parasite prevalence and other national factors (e.g., the presumed causal mechanisms underlying sex-typed
income, distance from the equator). These results were behaviors.
taken as evidence that women and men possess special-
ized mating adaptations that are activated in response to Mating theories that integrate hormonal influ-
environmental cues associated with fitness in evolution- ences and social roles.  More sophisticated, interactive
ary history. In this “evoked” cultural view, variation in sex models appear to be emerging in the study of mate pref-
differences arises across cultures as circumstances evoke erences, especially with respect to the hormonal and
different biological adaptations. neural mechanisms involved in social interaction. In
This debate about how to account for mate prefer- humans, mating no doubt invokes multiple neural and
ences across cultures was resolved by researchers not hormonal systems and also is highly responsive to social
identified with either of the earlier analyses. Zentner and contexts (see Wood & Eagly, 2012). These biological sys-
Mitura (2012) used a recently developed, more accurate tems were shaped in part through ancient selection pres-
indicator of national gender equality, which captures the sures associated with perceptual, sensory, and
gap between men and women independently of other motivational processes that humans share with other ani-
cultural and socioeconomic factors. Also, these research- mals. Across human evolutionary history, these relations
ers predicted sex-differentiated mate preferences on a also were shaped by biological systems that evolved
more reliable measure aggregated across the mate attri- within complex social groups (Heatherton, 2011). As
butes and on measures of the individual attributes. In the a result, hormones such as testosterone and oxytocin
original 37 cultures sample and in a new, Internet sam- may be implicated in the neural circuitry involved in self-
ple, they demonstrated smaller sex differences in more regulation and control with respect to social choices such
gender-equal societies. This research also ruled out a as mating (see Mehta & Beer, 2010).
number of potential confounds in interpreting the differ- Given the complex role of hormones in human mate
ences across cultures, thereby demonstrating that nations’ choice, some relatively simple tests of endocrine media-
gender equality predicted mate preferences even after tion have received little support (e.g., effects of menstrual
controlling for such factors as nations’ geographic dis- cycles on mate preferences; C. R. Harris, 2011; see the
tance from the equator and gross domestic product. The meta-analysis by Wood, Kressel, Joshi, & Louie, 2012).
overall pattern suggests that women and men construct Nonetheless, reproductive roles have striking influences
mate preferences within a particular division of labor and on hormonal processes. Men and women in close rela-
value partners with attributes that are useful for male and tionships have lower testosterone levels (Booth, Granger,
female roles in the society.1 Mazur, & Kivlighan, 2006; van Anders & Watson, 2007),
The controversy over interpretations of the cross- and men and women seeking relationships show higher
cultural data on mate preferences is noteworthy because testosterone levels, presumably because of the competi-
it directly contrasts nature and nurture accounts for the tion they experience (Gettler, McDade, Feranil, & Kuzawa,
same data. More commonly, researchers in each tradition 2011; van Anders & Goldey, 2010). By demonstrating
attempt to account for sex differences and similarities how hormonal processes are embedded in social mating
without testing for the potential impact of the other set of and parenting relations, such studies allow researchers to
factors. Yet, persuasive support for any perspective begin to build interactive models that integrate nature
requires tests of alternative hypotheses along with tests and nurture (see van Anders, Goldey, & Kuo, 2011). In
of the postulated mechanisms that produce the sex dif- general, this research highlights how the evolution of
ference outcomes. Evolutionary psychology, because of sophisticated neural and hormonal systems enabled
its gene-centered approach, ultimately requires biological women and men to tailor their behaviors to meet prevail-
evidence for the postulated sex-specific mental modules ing social demands.
that are presumed to have evolved early in human his-
tory due to enduring sexual selection pressures. If human Interactionist Theories That Integrate
behavior is largely an expression of evolved genetic pro-
grams, then supporting evidence ultimately rests on a
Nature and Nurture
plausible genetic account, accompanied by evidence Despite the widespread acknowledgement among gen-
concerning associated hormonal processes and neural der researchers that sex differences and similarities in
structures (see Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2003). Social con- behavior reflect both nature and nurture, most theoretical
structive theories also require direct tests of mediation, in analyses emphasize one or the other set of causes. Few
this case involving sociocultural causes of mate prefer- theories at present are truly interactionist by considering
ences (for example, see Eagly, Eastwick, & Johannesen- the intertwined contributions of biological and sociocul-
Schmidt, 2009; Witt & Wood, 2010). Both evolutionary tural influences. More typically, researchers focus on one
10 Eagly, Wood

type of potential causal mechanism without outlining a the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis. This biological
clear role for the other type. Thus, theories of genetic and phenomenon varies in important ways due to contextual
hormonal influences often do not consider the social factors, as suggested by girls beginning menstruation as
context in which these processes function, whereas social early as 12 years in some urban postindustrial areas and
construction theories often do not recognize the biology as late as 18 years in rural highland Papua New Guinea or
that is being construed. high altitude Nepali groups. Research extending over
The idea that nature and nurture causation can be par- many years has shown that aspects of some girls’ social
titioned is inherent in the sex versus gender separation environments, especially father absence and family dis-
that emerged from feminist discussions in the 1970s (e.g., ruption, are associated with earlier menarche.
Unger, 1979). However, if the attributes of men and To account for the various influences on menarche,
women stem from intertwined nature and nurture causa- Ellis and his colleagues have proposed an evolutionary-
tion, this distinction is at best scientifically awkward. Our developmental model whereby father absence and
solution is to define the term sex by its common-lan- maternal depression negatively affect the quality of fam-
guage meaning of categories “into which humans and ily relationships (Ellis, 2004; James, Ellis, Schlomer, &
most other living things are divided on the basis of their Garber, 2012). In girls but not boys, lower familial qual-
reproductive functions” (Oxford English Dictionary, ity accelerates pubertal maturation, signaled by earlier
2013). Observed differences between women and men menarche and younger sexual activity. In view of the
are termed sex differences, regardless of their causes. The similar effects of low socioeconomic status, these effects
term gender is then free to refer to the meanings that are assumed to be mediated in girls by the release of
individuals and societies ascribe to males and females stress hormones (cortisol and epinephrine) via the hypo-
(e.g., gender stereotypes). thalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, which also releases
In moving beyond dualistic sex/gender thinking, psy- adrenal androgens that facilitate the initial stage of
chologists can treat culture and biology not as separate pubertal development and in turn stimulate the develop-
influences but as interacting components of nature and ment of the gonads and secondary sexual characteristics.
nurture. One challenge in constructing specific interac- This research area thus integrates certain environmental
tive theories is that both nature and nurture are multifac- variables with biological processes critical to female sex-
eted. Given that biology is a complex array of factors as ual maturation.
are sociocultural environments, each interactionist theory
of sex differences models only a portion of potential bio-
Biological and social vulnerabilities
social interactions. To illustrate such approaches, we
describe several efforts, each of which theorizes particu- in depression
lar interactions and thereby provides a partial mapping of Sex-related aspects of clinical depression provide another
intertwined nature and nurture. example of interactive theorizing. Research has identified
multiple biological and environmental factors associated
Genetic influences depend on the with women’s greater incidence of depression, thus call-
ing for interactionist theories that take these factors into
social environment account. In their cognitive-vulnerability/transactional-
In one important type of nature–nurture interaction, stress theory, Hankin and Abramson (2001) incorporated
genes function not as encapsulated units of heredity, but genetic cognitive factors that combine with negative
as response systems that are highly contingent on envi- events to produce the negative affect that can precipitate
ronmental input (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2003). Therefore, depression. In their ABC (i.e., affective, biological, cogni-
the genetic sex difference does not simply program males tive) theory of women’s greater incidence of depression,
and females for different behavior. As Fisher (2006) wrote Hyde, Mezulis, and Abramson (2008) considered interac-
in relation to the brain, “Genes do not specify behaviors tions among multiple sources of vulnerability: the affec-
or cognitive processes; they make regulatory factors, sig- tive propensity of emotional reactivity; biological
naling molecules, receptors, enzymes, and so on, that propensities such as genetic vulnerability, pubertal hor-
interact in highly complex networks, modulated by envi- mones, and pubertal timing and development; and cog-
ronmental influences, in order to build and maintain the nitive propensities such as cognitive style, objectified
brain” (p. 270). body consciousness, and rumination. When combined
The timing of menarche in adolescent girls illustrates with negative life events, these vulnerabilities heighten
this kind of interactionist thinking (see Allison & Hyde, girls’ rates of depression beginning in adolescence. These
2013). Age of onset is regulated biologically by the matu- two efforts thus illustrate the emerging understanding of
ration of the adrenal glands and the regulatory effects of biosocial interactions in clinical psychology.
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 11

Evoked culture attributes, especially women’s reproductive activities and

men’s size and strength, which can allow some activities
Evolutionary psychologists offer a different form of inter- to be more efficiently performed by one sex or the other
actionism, known as the evoked culture model (Tooby & depending on the socioeconomic and ecological context.
Cosmides, 1992). In this approach, natural selection Human biology thus interacts with the environment to
endowed humans with many cognitive modules that produce a division of labor.
address specific adaptive problems that occurred fre- Within societies, the division of labor is created and
quently in the ancestral past (e.g., abundance vs. famine). perpetuated through social psychological processes
Current environmental cues then can evoke one or a set involved in forming gender role beliefs that make the
of these domain-specific, inherited behavioral strategies, contemporaneous division of labor seem natural and
thereby producing variability in behavior (Buss & Schmitt, inevitable. Gender roles encourage most adults to con-
2011). The metaphor of a jukebox provides an apt form to these shared beliefs, given that other people gen-
description of this theory (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). erally accept and support individuals who act in
Different behaviors (metaphorically, songs) were geneti- accordance with these roles. Gender roles also are inter-
cally coded early in human history, and the current social nalized as personal standards for individuals’ behavior,
and cultural context triggers them. This model is interac- thus facilitating self-regulatory behavior. These social
tionist in the limited sense that current environmental psychological influences act in concert with biological
cues evoke mechanisms built into the minds of ancestral processes involving hormones to support the sociocul-
humans. Yet the fact that human fitness estimated by tural factors that guide masculine and feminine behaviors
population growth has spiked under relatively recent, within cultures (Wood & Eagly, 2010, 2012).
evolutionarily novel conditions involving social technol- In this model, subcortical structures interact with more
ogy and dense urban living conditions challenges the recently evolved, general purpose, higher brain functions
sufficiency of a model that focuses primarily on adapta- associated with the neocortex that allow people to
tions to prehistoric environments. respond flexibly to others’ expectations and their own
identities (Heatherton, 2011; Panksepp & Panksepp,
Biosocial constructionist theory 2000). Thus, by a confluence of biological and social pro-
cesses, the sexes organize behavior into patterns that are
According to another important type of interactionist tailored to their contemporary conditions.
thinking, sociocultural factors shape the meanings that The various interactive models we consider are cer-
individuals and societies ascribe to men and women— tainly not the last word on the dynamic interrelations
meanings that rest on a biology in which most individu- between nature and nurture that guide sex differences
als possess XX or XY chromosomes. This biological and similarities. Many additional models are likely to
difference emerges in human societies as a division of develop in future years to capture research developments
labor as the effects of male and female biology are mod- that help to clarify the ways that nature and nurture inter-
erated by the social environment. Our own biosocial act. It will remain challenging to create models that take
constructionist theory takes this approach to understand- into account the large number of biological and sociocul-
ing nature–nurture interactions (Wood & Eagly, 2002, tural processes that influence the psychology of women
2012). This account emphasizes humans’ evolved capaci- and men.
ties to innovate and communicate with others and
thereby to produce a cumulative culture in which beliefs Implications of Research on the
and practices are shared and subsequently modified.
Psychology of Gender
These capacities, arising from the novel, nonrecurring
environments of the late Pleistocene Era, are a product of The psychology of gender is an extremely active area of
humans’ adaptation not primarily to particular environ- scientific psychology, with a very large production of
mental features, but to variation itself, which favored journal articles during the last quarter century (see data
capacities for responsiveness to novel environments in Eagly et al., 2012). One overriding theme in much of
(Richerson & Boyd, 2005). this research is an emphasis on features of either nature
In human societies, psychological flexibility is con- or nurture as causes of sex-related behavior. In this arti-
strained in both sexes by a female–male division of labor cle, we provided a historical context for some of the
that varies in form across societies. Through proximal trends in psychologists’ attention to nature and nurture.
mediators, this division of labor yields the familiar psy- We considered past work that treated each cause as inde-
chologies of women and men. The specific activities that pendent of the other along with work that competitively
comprise the division of labor derive in part from male tested each cause against the other. Finally, we noted
and female biology—that is, their evolved physical instances of integration by biosocial models that outline
12 Eagly, Wood

interactions between the nature and nurture underlying clever about setting up tests and conducting analyses to
the psychology of women and men. favor their own theories and are highly critical of findings
Regardless of the nature or nurture focus of research that challenge their ideas (Mahoney, 1977; Wagenmakers,
on sex and gender, it often attracts popular attention. Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Kievit, 2012).
People are interested in these topics because they touch Research on gender may be especially subject to bias-
on issues of personal identity and their own life choices. ing beliefs, given that investigations of gender and sex
The considerable media attention devoted to many inves- are relevant to scientists’ own social identities. In social
tigations of sex-related attributes is thus not surprising. psychology, bias in favor of the groups in which people
Two recent examples are research on the mathematical have membership is a well-established phenomenon (see
abilities of girls and boys (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010). Ingroup bias, presumed to
Williams, 2008, reported by Park, 2008) and research on emerge from a need for positive social identity, motivates
social identity threats for women in male-dominated people to evaluate their own social groups more favor-
work settings (Holleran, Whitehead, Schmader, & Mehl, ably than other groups (Ellemers & Haslam, 2012).
2011, reported by Vedantam, 2012). Of course, such Because most people, including scientists, are profoundly
media reports provide highly condensed summaries of identified with their gender (Witt & Wood, 2010; Wood &
scientific articles, very often presenting mere snippets of Eagly, 2009), they may unwittingly reason in favor of their
complex research programs. Such publicity potentially own group. For example, several meta-analyses testing
informs popular beliefs, given experiments that have for sex-of-author effects have found that male and female
demonstrated belief shifts after participants read articles researchers produced findings that portrayed their own
ascribing sex differences to biological versus sociocul- gender more favorably than did researchers of the other
tural causes (e.g., Brescoll & LaFrance, 2004). However, sex (e.g., Anderson & Leaper, 1998; see Eagly, 2012, for
these effects may be short lived outside of the lab. The review). Even more troubling are experiments that
extent to which the public retains media reports over manipulated the favorability of research findings to each
time and uses them to inform their broader theories sex and established that participants of both sexes were
about gender is unknown. We suspect that the brevity more positive about findings that portrayed their own sex
and often contradictory quality of reports of scientific favorably (Morton, Haslam, Postmes, & Ryan, 2006). This
findings diminish their influence. effect was more pronounced among participants who
The lack of influence of psychological research on pub- possessed at least some scientific training, thus raising
lic discourse about broad gender-related topics, which we doubts about whether scientific training or knowledge
illustrated by the Slaughter (2012) article, should give mitigates this type of bias. All in all, it is likely that ideo-
pause to the community of psychological researchers. We logical and ingroup biases cloud scientific knowledge
ascribe this inattention at least in part to psychology’s about the psychology of gender.
inconsistent messages about nature and nurture causes of
sex-typed behavior. Without a more integrative stance,
Conclusion
psychology provides little clear basis for public reasoning
about gender issues. Yet some writers do focus on parts of We believe that the future of science pertaining to gender
psychological science by, for example, favoring an evolu- and sex differences lies in overcoming ideological and
tionary psychology narrative of evolved dispositions or a identity biases and formulating theories that effectively
social psychological narrative of prejudice, stereotype integrate principles of nature and nurture into interaction-
threat, and backlash effects. The diversity of psychology’s ist approaches. Yet, the complexity of such theories pres-
theories and findings allows lay people to select freely ents intellectual challenges for psychological scientists
from them on the basis of their own ideology. who try to model the intrinsic dependence of nature on
A coherent message from psychology would require nurture and vice versa. Perhaps as a result, research has
integration of the diverse streams of research on gender tended to focus on one or the other type of cause, yield-
into biosocial interaction theories that acknowledge ing a muddled scientific voice in public discourse. Adding
causal roles for both biological and social influences on further difficulties, the media and public need simplifying
the psychology of women and men. Research that tests frameworks that facilitate using scientific evidence to rea-
interactive theories is more difficult to design than son about gender in daily life. Excellent communication is
research testing simple, sovereign theories. Also hinder- essential because any messages from psychological sci-
ing such integrative theories, psychological scientists, like ence on gender issues compete with robust informal rea-
people in general, have biases that limit their own under- soning based on ideology, everyday observation, and
standing of the psychology of gender. As seen in research cultural traditions. Among the competing informational
on biases in judgment and decision making, scientists are sources on sex and gender, science may not be winning.
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 13

Declaration of Conflicting Interests Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping.
American Psychologist, 58, 1019–1027. doi:10.1037/0003-
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
066X.58.12.1019
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Blakemore, J. E. O., Berenbaum, S. A., & Liben, L. S. (2009).
Note Gender development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bleier, R. (1991). Gender ideology and the brain: Sex differ-
1. Cross-cultural comparisons, especially in self-reports of per- ences research. In M. T. Notman & C. C. Nadelson (Eds.),
sonality traits and preferences, do not always reveal smaller sex Issues in psychiatry: Women and men: New perspectives on
differences in societies with greater gender equality. Instead, as gender differences (pp. 63–73). Arlington, VA: American
Wood and Eagly (2012) argued, these ratings may depend on Psychiatric Association.
the comparison standards against which respondents compare Booth, A., Granger, D. A., Mazur, A., & Kivlighan, K. T. (2006).
themselves. A shifting standard of comparison could disguise Testosterone and social behavior. Social Forces, 85, 167–
sex differences in gender-unequal societies if people compare 191.doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0116
with same-sex groups in gender unequal societies but mixed- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein,
sex groups in more gender equal ones (Biernat, 2003). H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester,
England: Wiley.
References Boxer, C. F., Noonan, M. C., & Whelan, C. B. (in press).
Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: Measuring mate preferences: A replication and extension.
When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133. Journal of Family Issues.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.129 Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and conse-
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and conse- quences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences.
quences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differ- Psychological Science, 15, 515–520. doi:10.1111/j.0956-
ences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 7976.2004.00712.x
40, 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164 Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecologi-
Allison, C. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2013). Early menarche: Confluence cal model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W.
of biological and contextual factors. Sex Roles, 68, 55–64. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, 6th
American Psychological Association. (2013). Thesaurus of psy- ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
chological index terms. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate prefer-
org/index.cfm?fa=termfinder.displayTerms&id=082EA93B- ences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.
9DE8-AA40-8271-8250B456440A Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. doi:10.1017/
Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender S0140525X00023992
effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology
where, and how. Sex Roles, 39, 225–252. doi:10.1023/ and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768–787. doi:10.1007/s11199-
A:1018802521676 011-9987-3
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R.
Prentice-Hall. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural
Banerjee, R., & Lintern, V. (2000). Boys will be boys: The effect evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63,
of social evaluation concerns on gender-typing. Social 491–503. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x
Development, 9, 397–408. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00133 Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms
Becker, S. W., & Eagly, A. H. (2004). The heroism of governing gender development. Child Development, 63,
women and men. American Psychologist, 59, 163–178. 1236–1250. doi:10.2307/1131530
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.3.163 Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological
in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. Bulletin, 125, 367–383. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
doi:10.1037/h0025583 Campbell, A. (2012). The study of sex differences: Feminism
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androg- and biology. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psy­
yny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, chology], 220, 137–143. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000105
155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215 Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2013). Men and women are
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive from Earth: Examining the latent structure of gender.
account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 385–407.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354 doi:10.1037/a0030437
Berenbaum, S. A., & Beltz, A. M. (2011). Sexual differentiation Chou, K.-H., Cheng, Y., Chen, I.-Y., Lin, C.-P., & Chu, W.-C.
of human behavior: Effects of prenatal and pubertal orga- (2011). Sex-linked white matter microstructure of the social
nizational hormones. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, and analytic brain. NeuroImage, 54, 725–733. doi:10.1016/j
183–200. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.03.001 .neuroimage.2010.07.010
Berenbaum, S. A., Blakemore, J. E. O., & Beltz, A. M. (2011). A Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in recep-
role for biology in gender-related behavior. Sex Roles, 64, tivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human
804–825. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9990-8 Sexuality, 2, 39–55. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04
14 Eagly, Wood

Collaer, M. L., & Hines, M. (1995). Human behavioral sex dif- and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35,
ferences: A role for gonadal hormones during early devel- 403–414.
opment? Psychological Bulletin, 118, 55–107. doi:10.1037/ Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. (2012).
0033-2909.118.1.55 Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, research. American Psychologist, 67, 211–230. doi:10.1037/
D. M. G., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary a0027260
psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limi- Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership
tations. American Psychologist, 65, 110–126. doi:10.1037/ style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–
a0018413 256. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233
Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality charac- Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive
teristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psycho-
offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, logical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.
309–329. doi:10.1037/a0022152 doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.309
Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences
expectation communication and performance influence. in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 389–410. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037//0003-
Courvoisier, D. S., Renaud, R., Geiser, C., Paschke, K., Gaudy, 066X.54.6.408
K., & Jordan, K. (2013). Sex hormones and mental rota- Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy
tion: An intensive longitudinal investigation. Hormones and and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.
Behavior, 63, 345–351. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.12.007 doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.100
Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). What an interven- Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In P.
tion design reveals about how parents affect their chil- van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook
dren’s academic achievement and behavior problems. In of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379–398).
J. G. Borkowski, S. L. Ramey, & M. Bristol-Power (Eds.), London, England: Sage.
Monographs in parenting: Parenting and the child’s world: Ellis, B. J. (2004). Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: An
Influences on academic, intellectual, and social-emotional integrated life history approach. Psychological Bulletin,
development (pp. 75–97). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 130, 920–958. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.920
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution and behavior (2nd Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C.
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-anal-
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation ysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. doi:10.1037/0033-
to sex (1st ed.). London, England: John Murray. 2909.132.1.33
Davatzikos, C., & Resnick, S. M. (1998). Sex differences Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-
in anatomic measures of interhemispheric connectiv- national patterns of gender differences in mathematics:
ity: Correlations with cognition in women but not men. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127.
Cerebral Cortex, 8, 635–640. doi:10.1093/cercor/8.7.635 doi:10.1037/a0018053
Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social catego- England, P., & Bearak, J. (2012). Women’s education and
ries: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American their likelihood of marriage: A historical reversal. Fact
Psychologist, 39, 105–116. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.105 Sheet Prepared for The Council on Contemporary Families.
Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psy- Retrieved from http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/
chological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981. marriage-partnership-divorce/fact-sheet-marriage-and-edu-
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.9.971 cation.html
Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An Estes, Z., & Felker, S. (2012). Confidence mediates the sex dif-
examination of the social psychology of gender. American ference in mental rotation performance. Archives of Sexual
Psychologist, 64, 644–658. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644 Behavior, 4, 557–570. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9875-5
Eagly, A. H. (2012). Science, feminism, and the psychology Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physi-
of investigating gender. In R. W. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi cal attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison
(Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit reason- across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality
ing (pp. 267–288). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993. doi:10.1037/0022-
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex- 3514.59.5.981
typed communications as determinants of sex differences Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection
in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence stud- preferences: A test of the parental investment model.
ies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1–20. doi:10.1037/0033- Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.90.1.1 2909.112.1.125
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psycho- meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.
logical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283 Fine, D. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society,
Eagly, A. H., Eastwick, P. W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2009). and neurosexism create difference. New York, NY: Norton.
Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the antici- Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social
pated division of labor on the mate preferences of women norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity.
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 15

Psychological Science, 20, 1290–1295. doi:10.1111/j.1467- Hill, K., Barton, M., & Hurtado, M. (2009). The emergence
9280.2009.02439.x of human uniqueness: Characters underlying behav-
Fisher, S. E. (2006). Tangled webs: Tracing the connections ioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 18, 187–200.
between genes and cognition. Cognition, 101, 270–297. doi:10.1002/evan.20224
Freud, S. (1927). Some psychological consequences of the ana- Hilliard, L. J., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender
tomical distinction between the sexes. The International salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gen-
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 8, 133–142. der attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Development, 81,
Galton, F. (1907). Inquiries into the human faculty and its 1787–1798. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01510.x
development. London, England: Dent. Hines, M. (1982). Prenatal gonadal hormones and sex differ-
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). ences in human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 56–
Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked 80. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.56
culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, Hines, M., & Green, R. J. (1991). Human hormonal and neu-
75–95. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1 ral correlates of sex-typed behaviors. In A. Tasman &
Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Feranil, A. B., & Kuzawa, C. W. S. M. Goldfinger (Eds.), American psychiatric press review of
(2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases psychiatry (Vol. 10, pp. 536–555). Arlington, VA: American
testosterone in human males. Proceedings of the National Psychiatric Association.
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, Holleran, S. E., Whitehead, J., Schmader, T., & Mehl, M. R.
16194–16199. doi:10.1073/pnas.1105403108 (2011). Talking shop and shooting the breeze: A study of
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis workplace conversation and job disengagement among
in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. STEM faculty. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile 2, 65–71. doi:10.1177/1948550610379921
and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) &
gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychol-
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 ogy (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 387–467). New York, NY: Wiley.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Hyde, J. S. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences?
Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857. A meta-analysis using ω2 and d. American Psychologist, 36,
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of 892–901. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.8.892
gender differences in depression: An elaborated cogni- Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggres-
tive vulnerability–transactional stress theory. Psychological sion? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental
Bulletin, 127, 773–796. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.773 Psychology, 20, 722–736.
Harris, C. R. (2011). Menstrual cycle and facial preferences Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
reconsidered. Sex Roles, 64, 669–681. doi:10.1007/s11199- Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
010-9772-8 Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender dif-
Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differ- ferences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis.
ences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155. doi:10.1037/0033-
than men? Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 48–63. 2909.107.2.139
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams,
socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math perfor-
102, 458–489. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458 mance. Science, 321, 494–495. doi:10.1126/science.1160364
Hausmann, M., Schoofs, D., Rosenthal, H. E., & Jordan, K. Hyde, J. S., Mezulis, A. H., & Abramson, L. Y. (2008). The ABCs
(2009). Interactive effects of sex hormones and gender of depression: Integrating affective, biological, and cogni-
stereotypes on cognitive sex differences—A psychobio- tive models to explain the emergence of the gender differ-
social approach. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 389–401. ence in depression. Psychological Review, 115, 291–313.
doi:10.1016%2Fj.psyneuen.2008.09.019 doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.291
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2011). Global James, J., Ellis, B. J., Schlomer, G. L., & Garber, J. (2012). Sex-
gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic specific pathways to early puberty, sexual debut, and
Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ sexual risk taking: Tests of an integrated evolutionary–
WEF_-GenderGap_Report_2010.pdf developmental model. Developmental Psychology, 48, 687–
Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Neuroscience of self and self- 702. doi:10.1037/a0026427
regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 363–390. Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brainstorm: The flaws in the sci-
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131616 ence of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta- Press.
analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception,
Heilman, M. E., & Parks-Stamm, E. J. (2007). Gender stereo- social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and
types in the workplace: Obstacles to women’s career prog- the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In M. P.
ress. Advances in Group Processes, 24, 47–77. doi:10.1016% Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
2FS0882-6145%2807%2924003-2 (Vol. 28, pp. 281–388). doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60240-3
16 Eagly, Wood

Kagan, J. (1964). Acquisition and significance of sex typing McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003).
and sex role identity. In M. Hoffman & L. Hoffman (Eds.), The family contexts of gender development in child-
Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 137–168). hood and adolescence. Social Development, 12, 125–148.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00225
Karniol, R., & Gal-Disegni, M. (2009). The impact of gender- Mehta, P. H., & Beer, J. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the
fair versus gender-stereotyped basal readers on 1st-grade testosterone–aggression relation: The role of orbitofrontal
children’s gender stereotypes: A natural experiment. cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2357–2368.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23, 411–420. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21389
doi:10.1080/02568540909594670 Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). “Like me”: A foundation for social cog-
Kenrick, D. K., Maner, J. K., & Li, N. P. (2005). Evolutionary nition. Developmental Science, 10, 126–134. doi:10.1111/
social psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of j.1467-7687.2007.00574.x
evolutionary psychology (pp. 803–827). Hoboken, NJ: Mischel, W. (1966). A social learning view of sex differences in
Wiley. behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex dif-
Kimball, M. M. (1986). Television and sex-role attitudes. In ferences (pp. 56–81). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
T. M. Williams (Ed.), The impact of television: A natural Moè, A. (2012). Gender difference does not mean genetic dif-
experiment in three communities (pp. 265–301). Orlando, ference: Externalizing improves performance in mental
FL: Academic Press. rotation. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 20–24.
Leaper, C. (2013). Gender development during childhood. In doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.001
P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental psy- Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972). Man and woman, boy
chology (pp. 327–377). New York, NY: Oxford University and girl: Differentiation and dimorphism of gender iden-
Press. tity from conception to maturity. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Leaper, C., Anderson, K. J., & Sanders, P. (1998). Moderators Hopkins University Press.
of gender effects on parents’ talk to their children: A Morrongiello, B. A., & Hogg, K. (2004). Mothers’ reactions
meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 3–27. to children misbehaving in ways that can lead to injury:
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.1.3 Implications for gender differences in children’s risk tak-
Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2003). Developmental dynamics: ing and injuries. Sex Roles, 50, 103–118. doi:10.1023/
Toward a biologically plausible evolutionary psychology. B:SERS.0000011076.43831.a6
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 819–835. doi:10.1037/0033- Morton, T. A., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2006).
2909.129.6.819 We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming
Lindzey, E. W., & Mize, J. (2001). Contextual differences in parent- science. Political Psychology, 27, 823–838. doi:10.1111/
child play: Implications for children’s gender-role develop- j.1467-9221.2006.00539.x
ment. Sex Roles, 44, 155–176. doi:10.1023/A:1010950919451 National Broadcasting Company. (1998). Human nature.
Lott, B. (1985). The potential enrichment of social/personal- Available from. www.orspub.com
ity psychology through feminist research and vice versa. Notman, M. T., & Nadelson, C. C. (1991). A review of gen-
American Psychologist, 40, 155–164. doi:10.1037/0003- der differences in brain and behavior. In M. T. Notman
066X.40.2.155 & C. C. Nadelson (Eds.), Issues in psychiatry. Women and
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential social- men: New perspectives on gender differences (pp. 23–34).
ization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Bulletin, 109, 267–296. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267 Oxford English Dictionary. (2013). Sex. Retrieved from http://
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sex?q=sex
together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Panksepp, J., & Panksepp, J. B. (2000). The seven sins of evo-
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex lutionary psychology. Evolution and Cognition, 6, 108–131.
differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Papadatou-Pastou, M., Martin, M., Munafò, M. R., & Jones, G.
Macunovich, D. J. (2011). Re-visiting the Easterlin hypothesis: V. (2008). Sex differences in left-handedness: A meta-anal-
Marriage in the U.S. 1968-2010 (Discussion Paper Series). ysis of 144 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 677–699.
Institute for the Study of Labor. Retrieved from http:// doi:10.1037/a0012814
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1906189 Park, A. (2008, July 24). The myth of the math gender gap.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimen- Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/
tal study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. article/0,8599,1826399,00.html
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 69–70. doi:10.1007/ Pedersen, W. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A., & Miller, L. C. (2011).
BF01173636 Are men and women really that different? Examining some
Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive the- of Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)’s key assumptions about
ories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, sex-distinct mating mechanisms. Sex Roles, 64, 629–643.
128, 903–933. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903 doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9811-5
Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance Pfannkuche, K. A., Bouma, A., & Groothuis, T. G. G. (2009).
in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 353–363. Does testosterone affect lateralization of brain and behav-
doi:10.1017/S0140525X98321226 iour? A meta-analysis in humans and other animal species.
McDougall, W. (1923). Outline of psychology. New York, NY: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 929–
Scribner’s. 942. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0282
The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges 17

Plomin, R. (1994). Genetics and experience: The interplay Sweeney, M. M. (2002). Two decades of family change: The
between nature and nurture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. shifting economic foundations of marriage. American
Pomerantz, E. M., & Ruble, D. N. (1998). The role of mater- Sociological Review, 67, 132–147. doi:10.2307/3088937
nal control in the development of sex differences in child Sweeney, M. M., & Cancian, M. (2004). The changing impor-
self-evaluative factors. Child Development, 69, 458–478. tance of White women’s economic prospects for assortative
doi:10.2307/1132178 mating. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1015–1028.
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00073.x
One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung,
described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363. R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight.
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How cul- Psychological Review, 107, 411–429. doi:10.1037/0033-
ture transformed human evolution. Chicago, IL: University 295X.107.3.411
of Chicago Press. Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Sex in education. The Bookman, 23,
Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In 211–214.
W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psy- Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and
chology (Vol. 3, 5th ed., pp. 933–1016). Hoboken, NJ: John the generation of culture: I. Theoretical considerations.
Wiley. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29–49. doi:10.1016/0162-
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management 3095(89)90012-5
and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). Psychological foundations
women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.),
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004– The adapted mind (pp. 19–136). New York, NY: Oxford
1010. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004 University Press.
Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In
Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereo- B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man:
types: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality 1871-1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164–1178. doi:10.1177/ Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender.
0146167201279009 American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094. doi:10.1037/0003-
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to 066X.34.11.1085
Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strate- U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Estimated median age at first mar-
gies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, riage, by sex (Table MS-2). Retrieved from www.census.
247–274. doi:10.1017%2FS0140525X05000051 gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.xls
Sears, R. R., Rau, L., & Alpert, R. (1965). Identification and child van Anders, S. M., & Goldey, K. L. (2010). Testosterone and
rearing. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson. partnering are linked via relationship status for women and
Sherwin, B. B. (1988). A comparative analysis of the role of “relationship orientation” for men. Hormones and Behavior,
androgen in human male and female sexual behavior: 58, 820–826. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.08.005
Behavioral specificity, critical thresholds, and sensitivity. van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The
Psychobiology, 16, 416–425. steroid/peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testos-
Shields, S. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psy- terone and peptide responses for classifying social behav-
chology of women. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754. ioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 1265–1275.
doi:10.1037/h0076948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.06.001
Signorielli, N. (2012). Television’s gender-role images and van Anders, S. M., & Watson, N. V. (2007). Testosterone lev-
contribution to stereotyping: Past, present, future. In D. els in women and men who are single, in long-distance
G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and relationships, or same-city relationships. Hormones and
the media (2nd ed., pp. 321–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Behavior, 51, 286–291. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.11.005
Sage. Vedantam, S. (2012, July 12). How stereotypes can drive women
Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting to quit science. All things considered, National Public Radio.
the Eccles’ expectancy-value model from mothers’ Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156664337/
beliefs in childhood to youths’ activities in adolescence. stereotype-threat-why-women-quit-science-jobs
Developmental Psychology, 48, 1019–1032. doi:10.1037/ Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of
a0027468 sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and con-
Slaughter, A. M. (2012, July-August). Why women still can’t sideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
have it all. The Atlantic, 310(1), 84–102. 250–270. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femi- Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas,
ninity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and ante- H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely con-
cedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. firmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7,
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and 632–638. doi:10.1177/1745691612463078
the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Weisstein, N. (1968). Kinder, Kirche, Kuche as scientific law:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. Psychology constructs the female. Boston, MA: New England
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797 Press.
18 Eagly, Wood

Wiese, B. S., & Freund, A. M. (2011). Parents as role mod- in social behavior (pp. 109–125). New York, NY: Guilford
els: Parental behavior affects adolescents’ plans for Press.
work involvement. International Journal of Behavioral Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T.
Development, 35, 218–224. doi:10.1177/0165025411398182 Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: (Vol. 1, 5th ed., pp. 629–667). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
A thirty-nation study. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. differences and similarities in behavior. In J. M. Olson &
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psy-
Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gen- chology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). London, England: Elsevier.
dered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. Wood, W., Kressel, L., Joshi, P., & Louie, B. (2012). Meta-
doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y analytic review of menstrual cycle effects on mate prefer-
Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in ences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53–71. doi Yzerbyt, V., & Demoulin, S. (2010). Intergroup relations. In
:10.1037%2F0033-2909.102.1.53 S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1024–1083). Hoboken, NJ:
behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins Wiley.
of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s
doi:10.1037%2F0033-2909.128.5.699 shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex dif-
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In M. R. Leary ferentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23,
& R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences 1176–1185. doi:10.1177/0956797612441004