ReviewBiology letters2025
The nurture of nature: why physical and psychological differences between the sexes are greater in healthier, wealthier societies.
Review in Biology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mapping the Conceptual Terrain Avoiding Common Conflations: Tentative Guide to Fruitful Discussion about Sexes and Genders.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Men and women differ morphologically, physiologically, cognitively, psychologically and behaviourally, and many of these differences are getting larger. We propose a synthesis of two disparate yet related mechanisms in combination with sexual selection theory to explain this divergence of the sexes. In large part through sexual selection, males and females have evolved many trait differences, some subtle, others stark. In stressful environments (e.g. frequent nutritional shortfalls, disease risk), those differences are attenuated because in the sex where the trait is greater (such as height in men, or various forms of memory in women) the effects of those stressors are more apparent. Societies exposed to these stressors have more restrictive social mores and harsher criminal punishments for norm violations, restricting the behavioural expression of individuals and hence sex-based preferences (e.g. working with people vs. things). It follows that reduction in ecological threats (e.g. pestilence) and out-group social threats (e.g. warfare) leads to a lessening of in-group social restrictions resulting in more self-referential cognitions, emotions and motivations, and through this a fuller expression of individual and thus sex differences in various psychological domains. In this scenario, increases in bodily sex differences, such as height, are predicted to be associated with increases in psychological and behavioural sex differences (e.g. facets of personality). Our model integrates evolutionary and biological processes with social customs and mores-that is, combines nature and nurture-into a cohesive framework to explain historical and cross-cultural variation in the magnitude of many sex differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.