Evolutionary psychology (EP) is reviewed as one currently popular theoretical framework to explain and predict psychological and behavioral differences between women and men. This approach has considerable promise, but there are numerous logical, theoretical, and methodological problems yet to be resolved. Social constructionism (SC) is briefly reviewed as an alternative approach that more adequately accounts for gender and sexual diversity; however it minimizes human embodiment. Both approaches deny a supernatural or spiritual dimension in creation; EP often explicitly assumes philosophical naturalism–a belief in a material universe in which evolutionary processes are random and purposeless. This assumption limits its ability to account for several aspects of the experience and the expression of human sexuality. The intelligent design (ID) approach is considered here as a possible complement to EP and SC. The key difference is foundational: ID assumes and infers the necessity of a supernatural, purposeful element. This assumption provides a broader interpretive framework and some potentially novel predictions about human sexuality. All three approaches have something to contribute to our understanding of human sexuality, and I conclude that a cautious, critical mutual engagement may enable us to transcend the dichotomies and limitations of each theoretical framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherJ. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible.American Psychologist, 51(9), 909–917.
2.
BakerR. R., & BellisM. A. (1995). Human sperm competition.London: Chapman & Hall.
3.
BemS. L. (1993). The lenses of gender.New Haven: Yale University Press.
4.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
5.
BussD. M. (1995a). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science.Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1–30.
6.
BussD. M. (1995b). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.American Psychologist, 50(3), 164–168.
7.
BussD. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
BussD. M., AbbottM., AngleitnerA., AsherianA., BiaggioA., & 45 other co-authors. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.
9.
BussD. M., & BarnesM. F. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.
10.
BussD. M., LarsenR., WestenD., & SemmelrothJ. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology.Psychological Sciences, 3, 251–255.
11.
BussD. M., & SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
12.
BuunkB. P., AngleitnerA., OubaidV., & BussD. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States.Psychological Science, 7(6), 359–363.
13.
CaporaelL. R., & BrewerM. B. (1991). Reviving evolutionary psychology: Biology meets society.Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 187–195.
14.
ChoiP. Y. L. (1999). Masculine domains of hunting and sport: Androcentrism in theories of evolution and sport.Psychology, Evolution, and Gender, 1(1), 33–43.
15.
CondryJ., & CondryS. (1976). Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder.Child Development, 47, 812–819.
16.
CosmidesL., & ToobyJ. (1994). Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: Toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science.Cognition, 50, 41–77.
DalyM., WilsonM., & WeghorstS. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy.Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11–27.
19.
DawkinsR. (1986). The blind watchmaker.New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
20.
DembskiW. A. (1998). Mere creation: Science, faith & intelligent design.Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
21.
DijkstraP., & BuunkB. P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of rival characteristics: An evolutionary perspective.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1158–1166.
22.
EhrenbergM. (1989). Women in prehistory.London: British Museum Publications.
23.
EpsteinC. F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2000). Beyond difference: Feminism and evolutionary psychology. In RoseH., & RoseS. (Eds.), Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 174–189). London: Random House.
25.
GouldS. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man.New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
26.
GriceJ. W., & SeelyE. (2000). The evolution of sex differences in jealousy: Failure to replicate previous results.Journal of Research in Personality, 34(3), 348–356.
27.
HarrisC. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1082–1091.
28.
HarrisC. R., & ChristenfeldN. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason.Psychological Science, 7(6), 364–366.
29.
HawkesK., O'ConnellJ. F., & Blurton JonesN. G. (1997). Hadza women's time allocation, offspring provisioning, and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans.Current Anthropology, 38(4), 551–565.
30.
HawkesworthM. (1997). Confounding gender.Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(3), 649–653.
31.
HolcombH. R.III (1993). Sociobiology, sex, and science.New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
32.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (2000). Why babies' brains are not Swiss army knives. In RoseH., & RoseS. (Eds.), Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 144–156). London: Random House.
33.
KesslerS., & McKennaW. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
LorberJ. (1993). Believing is seeing: Biology as ideology.Gender and Society, 7(4), 568–581.
35.
MasonM. A. (1998). The modern American stepfamily: Problems and possibilities. In MasonM. A., SkolnickA., & SugarmanS. D. (Eds.), All our families: New policies for a new century (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Oxford.
36.
MealeyL. (2000). Sex differences: Development and evolutionary strategies.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37.
MorelandJ. P. (1994). The creation hypothesis: Scientific evidence for an intelligent designer.Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
38.
NossA. J. (1997). The economic importance of communal net hunting among the BaAka of the Central African Republic.Human Ecology, 25, 71–89.
39.
PadgettA. G. (2000). Creation by design.Books & Culture, 30–32.
40.
PerrettD.I., LeeK.J., Penton-VoakI., RowlandD., YoshikawaS., BurtD.M., HenziS.P., CastlesD.L., & AkamatsuS. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.Nature, 394(6696), 884–887.
41.
PetersT. (1997). Playing God? Genetic determinism and human freedom.London: Routledge.
42.
RoseS. (2000). Escaping evolutionary psychology. In RoseH., & RoseS. (Eds.), Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 247–265). London: Random House.
43.
RoseH., & RoseS. (2000). Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology.London: Random House.
44.
ScarrS. (1997). The development of individual differences in intelligence and personality. In ReeseH. W., & FranzenM. D. (Eds.), Biological and neuropsychological mechanisms: Lifespan developmental psychology (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
SchlossJ. P. (1998). Evolutionary accounts of altruism and the problem of goodness by design. In DembskiW. A. (Ed.), Mere creation: Science, faith & intelligent design (pp. 236–261). Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
46.
ShakespeareT., & EricksonM. (2000). Different strokes: Beyond biological determinism and social constructionism. In RoseH., & RoseS. (Eds.), Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 190–205). London: Random House.
47.
ThornhillR., & ThornhillN. W. (1992). The evolutionary psychology of men's coercive sexuality.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 363–421.
48.
ToobyJ., & CosmidesL. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In BarkowJ. H., CosmidesL., & ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
WallersteinJ. S. (1998). Children of divorce: A society in search of a policy. In MasonM. A., SkolnickA., & SugarmanS. D. (Eds.), All our families: New policies for a new century (pp. 66–94). New York, NY: Oxford.
