Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40555376›Full record

ReviewBiology letters2025

The nurture of nature: why physical and psychological differences between the sexes are greater in healthier, wealthier societies.

Lewis G Halsey, David Geary

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lewis G HalseyDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Roehampton, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0786-7585
David GearyDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3029-6343

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Sex CharacteristicsSexual SelectionFemaleHumansMaleSocial BehaviorSocioeconomic Factorsdevelopmentenvironmental stressorsheighthumannaturenurturesexual dimorphismsexual selection

Identifiers

PMID40555376
PMCPMC12187407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.