A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.

Abstract

This article evaluates theories of the origins of sex differences in human behavior. It reviews the cross-cultural evidence on the behavior of women and men in nonindustrial societies, especially the activities that contribute to the sex-typed division of labor and patriarchy. To explain the cross-cultural findings, the authors consider social constructionism, evolutionary psychology, and their own biosocial theory. Supporting the biosocial analysis, sex differences derive from the interaction between the physical specialization of the sexes, especially female reproductive capacity, and the economic and social structural aspects of societies. This biosocial approach treats the psychological attributes of women and men as emergent given the evolved characteristics of the sexes, their developmental experiences, and their situated activity in society.

Affective contingencies in the affiliative domain: Physiological assessment, associations with the affiliation motive, and prediction of behavior.

“…Based on Wood and Eagly's (2002) biosocial model, it seems even possible that PAC-AFF represents a developmental link between individuals' gender specific social reinforcement histories and subsequent changes in affiliative behavior. Future research might address these possibilities.…”

Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.

“…These gender role beliefs both reinforce the division of labor via gender socialization practices and also lead to gender differences in cognition and behavior via the adoption of gender identities and self-standards, others' gendered social expectations, and the situational elicitation of hormones. The biosocial model (see Wood & Eagly, 2002) has been described as an alternative to, and in some regards a blend of, two other theoretical traditions often used to explain gender differences: (a) the essentialist perspective on gender (exemplified by evolutionary psychology; e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 2011;Pérusse, 1993)-which emphasizes men's evolved dispositions to participate in dominance contests and to control women's sexuality, along with women's evolved dispositions to select mates who provide more resources; cf. Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), and (b) the social constructionist perspective on gender (exemplified in sociology and anthropology; see Geertz, 1974;Mead, 1963;West & Zimmerman, 1987-which emphasizes gender differences as a local cultural phenomenon only, similar to the choice of clothing or hairstyles).…”

“…In the past, the social roles traditionally occupied by women were of lower status than those occupied by men (e.g., Lockwood, 1986;Meeker & Weitzel-O'Neill, 1977;Unger, 1978), which is a sign of cultural patriarchy (Wood & Eagly, 2002). In this system, women conventionally performed more domestic tasks and men tended to be primarily responsible for supporting households financially (Eagly, 1987;Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000).…”

Why is low waist-to-chest ratio attractive in males? The mediating roles of perceived dominance, fitness, and protection ability

“…Although sociocultural approaches often are framed in opposition to evolutionary perspectives, each sometimes reaches similar conclusions on the topics of attractiveness and mate selection, albeit for different reasons (Eagly & Wood, 1999;Wood & Eagly, 2002).…”