Perspectives on Psychological Science 2

Topics: Gender, Psychology, Sociology Pages: 23 (13166 words) Published: November 30, 2014
Perspectives on Psychological

The Nature−Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges in Understanding the Psychology of Gender Alice H. Eagly and Wendy Wood
Perspectives on Psychological Science 2013 8: 340
DOI: 10.1177/1745691613484767

The online version of this article can be found at:

On behalf of:

Association For Psychological Science

Additional services and information for Perspectives on Psychological Science can be found at:
Email Alerts:



Permissions: 484767research-article2013PPSXXX10.1177/1745691613484767Eagly, WoodThe Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges Perspectives on Psychological Science

The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years 8(3) 340 –357
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
of Challenges in Understanding the DOI: 10.1177/1745691613484767
Psychology of

Alice H. Eagly1 and Wendy Wood2
1Northwestern 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 differences and similarities? If asked, most psychologists would probably reply that the question is misguided. Obviously, both are influential. Yet, as we show in this article, nature–nurture debates have remained highly contentious in the psychology of gender, and contemporary researchers only sometimes integrate the two causal influences. More commonly, researchers focus on one type of cause to the exclusion of the other or treat them as competing explanations. In analyzing the state of these nature–nurture debates in psychological science, we invoke the terms in their broadest meaning, whereby nature refers to biological structures and processes and nurture refers to sociocultural influences. There is no doubt that these issues are important and absorbing to the general public as well as scientists. However, despite the immense amount of psychological research on gender, often it does not inform public discourse on gender issues. For example, 2012’s most widely discussed journalistic treatment of gender issues is AnneMarie Slaughter’s article “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” which appeared in the July–August issue of The Atlantic. Evidence of the article’s success lies in the approximately 370,000 hits produced by a Google search pairing its title and author (conducted March 29, 2013). Written in part from the perspective of the author’s own career decisions, the article cites mainly the opinions expressed by other women with highly...

References: Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.129
Alexander, M
Allison, C. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2013). Early menarche: Confluence of biological and contextual factors. Sex Roles, 68, 55–64.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Thesaurus of psychological index terms. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa. org/index.cfm?fa=termfinder.displayTerms&id=082EA93B-
Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39, 225–252. doi:10.1023/ A:1018802521676
Bandura, A
Banerjee, R., & Lintern, V. (2000). Boys will be boys: The effect of social evaluation concerns on gender-typing. Social Development, 9, 397–408. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00133
Becker, S
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. doi:10.1037/h0025583
Bem, S
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Berenbaum, S
Berenbaum, S. A., Blakemore, J. E. O., & Beltz, A. M. (2011). A role for biology in gender-related behavior. Sex Roles, 64,
Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping.
American Psychologist, 58, 1019–1027
Bleier, R. (1991). Gender ideology and the brain: Sex differences research. In M. T. Notman & C. C. Nadelson (Eds.), Issues in psychiatry: Women and men: New perspectives on gender differences (pp. 63–73). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Booth, A., Granger, D. A., Mazur, A., & Kivlighan, K. T. (2006).
Testosterone and social behavior
Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences.
Psychological Science, 15, 515–520
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing gender development. Child Development, 63, 1236–1250. doi:10.2307/1131530
Byrnes, J
Campbell, A. (2012). The study of sex differences: Feminism and biology. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 220, 137–143. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000105
Carothers, B
Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49, 389–410.
Courvoisier, D. S., Renaud, R., Geiser, C., Paschke, K., Gaudy, K., & Jordan, K. (2013). Sex hormones and mental rotation: An intensive longitudinal investigation. Hormones and Behavior, 63, 345–351. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.12.007
Cowan, P
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (1st ed.). London, England: John Murray.
Davatzikos, C., & Resnick, S. M. (1998). Sex differences in anatomic measures of interhemispheric connectivity: Correlations with cognition in women but not men. Cerebral Cortex, 8, 635–640. doi:10.1093/cercor/8.7.635
Deaux, K
Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.9.971
Eagly, A
Eagly, A. H. (2012). Science, feminism, and the psychology of investigating gender. In R. W. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit reasoning (pp. 267–288). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sextyped communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1–20. doi:10.1037/0033-
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.
Eagly, A. H., Eastwick, P. W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2009). Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women
and men
Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research. American Psychologist, 67, 211–230. doi:10.1037/ a0027260
Eagly, A
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles.
American Psychologist, 54, 408–423
Ellis, B. J. (2004). Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: An integrated life history approach. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 920–958. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.920
Else-Quest, N
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Crossnational patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
England, P., & Bearak, J
Estes, Z., & Felker, S. (2012). Confidence mediates the sex difference in mental rotation performance. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 4, 557–570
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993. doi:10.1037/0022-
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139
Fine, D. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York, NY: Norton.
Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity.
Psychological Science, 20, 1290–1295
Freud, S. (1927). Some psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 8, 133–142.
Galton, F. (1907). Inquiries into the human faculty and its development. London, England: Dent.
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1
Gettler, L
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression: An elaborated cognitive vulnerability–transactional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 773–796. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.773
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Evaluate psychological perspectives as explanations of Essay
  • Essay on Psychological Perspectives
  • Psychological Perspectives Essay
  • Essay about psychological perspectives
  • Essay about ​Childhood Studies Year 2 Psychological Perspectives
  • Forenisc science 2 Essay
  • Psychological Perspectives for Aggression Research Paper
  • MANAGEMENT SCIENCE homework 2 Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free