Abstract
This chapter discusses the influence of ideological bias in the psychological study of sex and gender, with a focus on academic psychology. After introducing the essence of the problem, the chapter examines the conceptual distinction between “sex” and “gender,” the binary nature of biological sex, and the challenges to the idea of a sex binary. The following sections provide a survey of recent introductory textbooks and generalist journals, as well as a historical overview of sex and gender in psychology from the late nineteenth century to the present day. The chapter ends with a consideration of the current state of the field, its future prospects, and suggestions to limit the growing influence of ideological bias in relation to sex and gender.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
So-called difference feminism has been out of fashion since the late 1990s and did not necessarily accept biological explanations of sex differences. Of course, one can be an equal-opportunity feminist while believing that some sex differences in behavior and cognition have a strong biological basis and contribute to determine enduring differences in social outcomes. But this viewpoint has virtually no traction on present-day feminism, which—especially in academia—is moving toward increasingly extreme versions of social constructionism (see, e.g., Else-Quest & Hyde, 2018; Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020).
- 2.
- 3.
Parts of this section are adapted from Del Giudice (2020).
- 4.
Species with simultaneous hermaphroditism (mostly plants and invertebrates) do not have distinct sexes, since any individual can produce both types of gametes at the same time.
- 5.
- 6.
I completed this survey on November 9, 2020, and included advance publication papers that were online at that time.
- 7.
One additional paper (Webermann & Murphy, 2020) offered recommendations to reduce “gender-based violence and misconduct on college campuses.” Since this paper had a strictly applied focus and did not deal with basic research on sex and gender, I excluded it from the survey.
- 8.
The issue of greater male variability in intellectual abilities has a long and contentious history, which I address later in the chapter.
- 9.
More precisely, Martin and Slepian (2020) mixed ideas about evolved psychological mechanisms from evolutionary psychology with the socialization account of social role theory (Eagly & Wood, 2012, 2016; see below). The result is a strangely incoherent theory, according to which (a) humans possess evolved, deeply ingrained, and stable gender schemas about typical masculine vs. feminine behaviors; but (b) masculine and feminine behaviors themselves are mainly shaped by socialization and malleable to the point that they can be changed with subtle linguistic interventions (e.g., relabeling assertive and competitive behaviors from “masculine” to “agentic” should help women become more competitive in the workplace).
- 10.
The meta-analysis by Kugler et al. (2018) found that sex differences in the initiation of negotiation (a behavior that is thought to contribute to gender inequalities) were “small” by conventional statistical criteria (for a detailed critique of conventional criteria for effect sizes, see Del Giudice, 2020). As I noted above, this is usually a preferred outcome—but not when differences are presented as evidence of discrimination. Indeed, the authors went to some length to explain that even small effects can cumulate over time and give rise to large differences in outcomes—a reasonable argument, but one that is rarely brought up in the literature on “gender similarities” (e.g., Hyde, 2005, 2014; but see Zell et al., 2015).
- 11.
In a recent video interview (October 10, 2019; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPsXpDIE0LA), Alice Eagly claimed that she had never denied the existence of sexually selected differences in psychological traits, but had simply chosen to emphasize the role of socialization. This is a transcript of the segment (starting at 17:56):
They [the evolutionary critics] put words in my mouth that I never said! I never said there weren’t such influences. It’s merely that I emphasized others that they forget about. So I would not claim that there are no such effects of prenatal androgenization or sexual selection or whatever, but the force of my work has been to show that there are other influences, and we need to get it all together.
This will come as a surprise to the many scholars who have used SRT precisely to discount the role of sexual selection and other biological factors. But the interview does raise the question of what SRT actually says in this regard. Re-reading the key papers presenting the theory, I could not find a single passage explicitly stating that psychological sex differences can be explained by sexual selection, though I did find a number of passages suggesting the opposite (e.g., Eagly & Wood, 1999, p. 415; Eagly & Wood, 2016, p. 464). Wood and Eagly (2012) came closest to accepting an organizational role for prenatal androgens, but described the evidence as equivocal and concluded that “[a]lthough sex-differentiated social experience surely does not operate on a blank slate, what is written on that slate has not been adequately deciphered so far” (p. 67). Throughout the chapter, they discussed how socialization may affect hormonal regulation, but not how hormonal differences may modulate social interactions (note that, in their Figure 1, socialization factors affect hormonal regulation, but not vice versa). Similarly, Wood and Eagly (2000) stated “[…] we recognize that such biological factors [hormones] work in concert with psychological processes involving social expectations and self-concepts to yield sex differences in behavior” and seemed to endorse “a feedback model in which testosterone affects socially dominant behavior and is in turn affected by such behavior and its outcomes.” My conclusion is that Eagly and Wood hedged their bets on the role of sex hormones; their writing on this issue invites a deflationary reading, but remains open to alternative interpretations (see also Eagly, 2018). On the other hand, as far as I can tell, these authors always portrayed SRT as an alternative to sexual selection on psychological traits, rather than a complementary explanation.
- 12.
I recommend the Denmark et al. chapter as a counterpoint to my “revisionist” account. For a less biased history of the field, see Chapter 2 in Blakemore et al. (2009).
- 13.
The authors checked 600 entries for each topic as reported in the Psychological Abstracts. Google Scholar returns 1810 results for “interpersonal attraction” between 1953 and 1973 (searched on November 11, 2020). If one third of them was reported in the Abstracts, that would amount to about 600 entries.
- 14.
Combined data from Tables 1 and 2 in McKenna and Kessler (1977).
- 15.
McKenna and Kessler cited a paper by Carlson and Carlson (1960), who examined 298 human studies published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology between 1958 and 1960. They found that 36% of the studies included participants of both sexes and that 30% of those studies reported statistical tests of sex differences. There was no information about the proportion of studies that reported descriptive statistics for both sexes without performing a test (and vice versa).
- 16.
Needless to say, there are a lot of incorrect or outdated statements in the book, and some ideas of the time (e.g., the recurring distinction between “higher” and “lower” races) have definitely not aged well. But readers familiar with current research on sex differences will be struck by how many issues Ellis managed to get approximately right, despite the limited data and conceptual tools available at the time.
- 17.
Note that Ellis was talking about differences in relative brain mass, after adjusting for differences in body mass or size. Ellis spent several pages (pp. 95–101) reviewing alternative ways to make this adjustment and considering their limitations. In contrast with Ellis’ conclusions, the recent evidence shows that men have a larger brain even controlling for body size (e.g., Ankney, 1992; Ritchie et al., 2018).
- 18.
Neuroticism/emotional stability is one of the personality traits showing the largest and most robust differences between men and women. Sex differences become even larger in more gender-egalitarian countries, a finding that would have surprised even Ellis (see Mac Giolla & Kajonius, 2019; Schmitt et al., 2017).
- 19.
Unfortunately, the sample was very small (25 men and 25 women), so the results were far less reliable than assumed at the time. For example, Woolley failed to detect any sex differences in emotion-related measures and used this finding to argue that women’s higher emotionality was a baseless stereotype (see below).
- 20.
In particular, Woolley criticized Geddes and Thomson’s (1889) theory of the evolution of sex, a then-popular alternative to Darwin’s (1871) theory of sexual selection. Many biologists regarded sexual selection theory as dubious until it was formalized by Fisher (1930); in the meantime, there were several attempts to develop an alternative account of the evolution of males and females. Geddes and Thomson’s theory was one of those attempts, based on the opposition between anabolic and catabolic processes; in fairness to Woolley, there was plenty to be critical about.
- 21.
- 22.
Then again, see Thorndike (1906) for a very different perspective on the same issue.
- 23.
Shields (1975) recounts the same period in the history of psychology, but from the standard feminist assumptions that sex differences are largely socially constructed; that the variability hypothesis (like other biological explanations) was only accepted because it justified women’s subordination; that the idea of an evolved “maternal instinct” is nothing but a subtly oppressive fiction; etc. From this vantage point, everything looks much darker. But even then, there is no ground for the narrative that “all psychology was the psychology of men”; and the contributions of Hollingworth, Woolley, and other feminist psychologists were not marginalized, but published in top journals, widely discussed, and accepted by many in the discipline.
- 24.
- 25.
To give just one example, Else-Quest and Hyde (2018) advocate a feminist approach to psychology and clearly note that “[f]eminism is a political movement and ideology as well as a theoretical perspective” (p. 7).
- 26.
In fact, the questionnaire that is commonly used to measure sexism (the “ambivalent sexism inventory”; Glick & Fiske, 1996) is a textbook example of blatant ideological bias in psychology. Here are some sample items indicating “benevolent sexism”:
-
In a disaster, women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men (reverse-scored).
-
Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste.
-
Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility.
-
No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman.
And some examples of “hostile sexism”:
-
Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men (reverse-scored).
-
Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for “equality.”
-
Women are too easily offended.
-
Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
The last item is especially ironic, considering that the questionnaire is full of arguably innocent remarks that are interpreted as indicators of sexism.
-
- 27.
To be clear, I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. While evolutionary psychology may be quite effective at limiting the impact of researchers’ ideological biases (thanks to the “buffering” effect of strong theory; Tybur & Navarrete, 2018), more political diversity would almost certainly benefit the field and add another layer of protection against conformity and groupthink.
References
Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined. Nature, 518, 288–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a
Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (2002). Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00107-1
Allen, C. N. (1927). Studies in sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074974
Allen, C. N. (1930). Recent studies in sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 27, 394–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070355
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
Ankney, C. D. (1992). Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too? Intelligence, 16, 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(92)90013-H
Anomaly, J., & Winegard, B. (2020). The egalitarian fallacy: Are group differences compatible with political liberalism? Philosophia, 48, 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-019-00129-w
Archer, J. (2019). The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences. Biological Reviews, 94, 1381–1415. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12507
Arden, R., & Plomin, R. (2006). Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.027
Asperholm, M., Högman, N., Rafi, J., & Herlitz, A. (2019). What did you do yesterday? A meta-analysis of sex differences in episodic memory. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 785–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000197
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press.
Barnett, R., & Rivers, C. (2004). Same difference: How gender myths are hurting our relationships, our children, and our jobs. Basic Books.
Baye, A., & Monseur, C. (2016). Gender differences in variability and extreme scores in an international context. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 4, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-015-0015-x
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077098
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Benenson, J. F. (2019). Sex differences in human peer relationships: A primate’s-eye view. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418812768
Bentley, M. (1945). Sanity and hazard in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 212–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417846
Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2018). Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability. American Psychologist, 73, 1139–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000427
Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., Fausto-Sterling, A., Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E. (2000). How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology, 12, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.10122
Blakemore, J. E. O., Berenbaum, S. A., & Liben, L. S. (2009). Gender development. Psychology Press.
Block, J. H. (1976). Issues, problems, and pitfalls in assessing sex differences: A critical review of “the psychology of sex differences”. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 22, 283–308. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23084065
Brown, C. S., Jewell, J. A., & Tam, J. M. (2020). Gender. In Noba Project (Ed.), Discover psychology 2.0 – A brief introductory text (pp. 97–111). Noba.
Burch, R. L. (2020). More than just a pretty face: The overlooked contributions of women in evolutionary psychology textbooks. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14, 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000166
Burton, L. J., Westen, D., & Kowalski, R. M. (2019). Psychology (5th Australian and New Zealand ed.). Wiley.
Buss, D. M. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Buss, D. M. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replicable. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617698225
Buss, D. M. (2020). Evolutionary theories in psychology. In Noba Project (Ed.), Discover psychology 2.0 – A brief introductory text (pp. 69–83). Noba.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3
Buss, D. M., & von Hippel, W. (2018). Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000049
Campbell, A. (2006). Feminism and evolutionary psychology. In J. H. Barkow (Ed.), Missing the revolution: Darwinism for social scientists (pp. 63–99). Oxford University Press.
Carlson, E. R., & Carlson, R. (1960). Male and female subjects in personality research. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 482–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048389
Cashdan, E., & Gaulin, S. J. (2016). Why go there? Evolution of mobility and spatial cognition in women and men. Human Nature, 27, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-015-9253-4
Chapais, B. (2017). Psychological adaptations and the production of culturally polymorphic social universals. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000079
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035334
Cretella, M. A., Rosik, C. H., & Howsepian, A. A. (2019). Sex and gender are distinct variables critical to health: Comment on Hyde, Bigler, Joel, Tate, and van Anders (2019). American Psychologist, 74, 842–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000524
Damore, J. (2017). Google’s ideological echo chamber. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2020.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray.
Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.000405
Del Giudice, M. (2012). The twentieth century reversal of pink-blue gender coding: A scientific urban legend? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1321–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0002-z
Del Giudice, M. (2015). Gender differences in personality and social behavior. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 750–756). Elsevier.
Del Giudice, M. (2017). Pink, blue, and gender: An update. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1555–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1024-3
Del Giudice, M. (2020). Measuring sex differences and similarities. In D. P. VanderLaan & W. I. Wong (Eds.), Gender and sexuality development: Contemporary theory and research. Springer.
Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012). The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PLoS One, 7, e29265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029265
Del Giudice, M., Puts, D. A., Geary, D. C., & Schmitt, D. P. (2018a). Sex differences in brain and behavior: Eight counterpoints. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201904/sex-differences-in-brain-and-behavior-eight-counterpoints
Del Giudice, M., Barrett, E. S., Belsky, J., Hartman, S., Martel, M. M., Sangenstedt, S., & Kuzawa, C. W. (2018b). Individual differences in developmental plasticity: A role for early androgens? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 90, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.02.025
Denmark, F. L., Klara, M., Baron, E., & Cambareri-Fernandez, L. (2008). Historical development of the psychology of women. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (2nd ed., pp. 3–39). Praeger.
Dunsworth, H. M. (2020). Expanding the evolutionary explanations for sex differences in the human skeleton. Evolutionary Anthropology, 29, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21834
Eagly, A. H. (2018). The shaping of science by ideology: How feminism inspired, led, and constrained scientific understanding of sex and gender. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 871–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12291
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (pp. 458–476). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613484767
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss183
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75, 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494
Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719
Ellis, H. (1894). Man and woman: A study of human secondary sexual characters. Scribner.
Ellis, L., Hershberger, S., Field, E., Wersinger, S., Pellis, S., Geary, D., et al. (2008). Sex differences: Summarizing more than a century of scientific research. Psychology Press.
Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (Eds.). (2018). The psychology of women and gender: Half the human experience (9th ed.). Sage.
Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362, eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. The Sciences, 33, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1993.tb03081.x
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Beyond difference: Feminism and evolutionary biology. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. Jonathan Cape.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. Routledge.
Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62, 61–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062001061
Ferguson, C. J., Brown, J. M., & Torres, A. V. (2018). Education or indoctrination? The accuracy of introductory psychology textbooks in covering controversial topics and urban legends about psychology. Current Psychology, 37, 574–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9539-7
Fernberger, S. W. (1948). Persistence of stereotypes concerning sex differences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059904
Fine, C. (2017). Testosterone rex: Unmaking the myths of our gendered minds. Norton.
Fine, C. (2020). Constructing unnecessary barriers to constructive scientific debate: A response to Buss and von Hippel (2018). Archives of Scientific Psychology, 8, 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000070
Fine, C., Joel, D., & Rippon, G. (2018). Responding to ideas on sex differences in brain and behavior. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201907/responding-ideas-sex-differences-in-brain-and-behavior
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press.
Fisher, M. L., Garcia, J. R., & Sokol-Chang, R. (Eds.). (2013). Evolution’s empress: Darwinian perspectives on the nature of women. Oxford University Press.
Friedman, B. X., Bleske, A. L., & Scheyd, G. J. (2000). Incompatible with evolutionary theorizing. American Psychologist, 55, 1059–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1059
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1
Geary, D. C. (2018). Efficiency of mitochondrial functioning as the fundamental biological mechanism of general intelligence (g). Psychological Review, 125, 1028–1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000124
Geary, D. C. (2021). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (3rd ed.). American Psychological Association.
Geddes, P., & Thomson, J. A. (1889). The evolution of sex. Walter Scott.
Gillette, A. (2007). Eugenics and the nature-nurture debate in the twentieth century. Palgrave Macmillan.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Grison, S., & Gazzaniga, M. (2019). Psychology in your life (3rd ed.). Norton.
Gross, P. A. (1998). Bashful eggs, macho sperm, and Tonypandy. In N. Koertge (Ed.), A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford University Press.
Gruber, J., Mendle, J., Lindquist, K. A., Schmader, T., Clark, L. A., Bliss-Moreau, E., et al. (2021). The future of women in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 483–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620952789
Haig, D. (2004). The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014323.56281.0d
Hall, G. S. (1906). Youth: Its education, regimen, and hygiene. Appleton.
Hankinson Nelson, L. (2017). Biology and feminism: A philosophical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Hartung, C. M., & Lefler, E. K. (2019). Sex and gender in psychopathology: DSM-5 and beyond. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000183
Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00529-9
Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Murray, D. (2016). The evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., pp. 968–987). Wiley.
Hassett, J. M., Siebert, E. R., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children. Hormones and Behavior, 54, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.03.008
He, W. J., & Wong, W. C. (2011). Gender differences in creative thinking revisited: Findings from analysis of variability. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 807–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.027
Helgeson, V. S. (2016). Psychology of gender (5th ed.). Routledge.
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child development perspectives, 2, 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x.
Hill, T. P. (2017). An elementary mathematical theory for the variability hypothesis. New York Journal of Mathematics, 23, 1641–1655.
Hill, T. P. (2018). Academic activists send a published paper down the memory hole. Quillette. https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
Hoff Sommers, C. (2009, June 29). Persistent myths in feminist scholarship. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/persistent-myths-in-feminist-scholarship/
Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement: A critique. American Journal of Sociology, 19, 510–530. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2762962
Hollingworth, L. S. (1916). Sex differences in mental traits. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072261
Hollingworth, L. S. (1918). Comparison of the sexes in mental traits. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075023
Hollingworth, L. S. (1919). Comparison of the sexes in mental traits. Psychological Bulletin, 16, 371–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072007
Howard, D. T. (1927). The influence of evolutionary doctrine on psychology. Psychological Review, 34, 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070903
Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Belknap.
Hull, C. L. (2003). Letter to the Editor: How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology, 15, 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.10122
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057
Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307
Janicke, T., Häderer, I. K., Lajeunesse, M. J., & Anthes, N. (2016). Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Science Advances, 2, e1500983. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500983
Janssen, D. F. (2018). Know thy gender: Etymological primer. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 2149–2154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1300-x
Jastrow, J. (1927). The reconstruction of psychology. Psychological Review, 34, 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071505
Joel, D. (2012). Genetic-gonadal-genitals sex (3G-sex) and the misconception of brain and gender, or, why 3G-males and 3G-females have intersex brain and intersex gender. Biology of Sex Differences, 3, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/2042-6410-3-27
Joel, D., & Fausto-Sterling, A. (2016). Beyond sex differences: New approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B, 371, 20150451. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0451
Johnson, W. B., & Terman, L. M. (1940) Some Highlights in the Literature of Psychological Sex Differences Published Since 1920. The Journal of Psychology, 9, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917699
Johnson, W., Carothers, A., & Deary, I. J. (2008). Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 518–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x
Jonason, P. K., & Schmitt, D. P. (2016). Quantifying common criticisms of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0050-z
Jordan-Young, R., & Rumiati, R. I. (2012). Hardwired for sexism? Approaches to sex/gender in neuroscience. Neuroethics, 5, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9134-4
Kaiser, T. (2019). Nature and evoked culture: Sex differences in personality are uniquely correlated with ecological stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 148, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.011
Kaiser, T., Del Giudice, M., & Booth, T. (2020). Global sex differences in personality: Replication with an open online dataset. Journal of Personality, 88, 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12500
Kalat, J. W. (2016). Introduction to psychology. Cengage.
Kenrick, D. T., & Li, N. (2000). The Darwin is in the details. American Psychologist, 55, 1060–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1060
Kodric-Brown, A., & Brown, J. H. (1987). Anisogamy, sexual selection, and the evolution and maintenance of sex. Evolutionary Ecology, 1, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02067393
Kugler, K. G., Reif, J. A., Kaschner, T., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2018). Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 198–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000135
Lauer, J. E., Yhang, E., & Lourenco, S. F. (2019). The development of gender differences in spatial reasoning: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 537–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000191
Lehre, A. C., Lehre, K. P., Laake, P., & Danbolt, N. C. (2009). Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans. Developmental Psychobiology, 51, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20358
Lehtonen, J., & Kokko, H. (2011). Two roads to two sexes: Unifying gamete competition and gamete limitation in a single model of anisogamy evolution. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1116-8
Lehtonen, J., & Parker, G. A. (2014). Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes. Molecular Human Reproduction, 20, 1161–1168. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gau068
Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. A., & Schärer, L. (2016). Why anisogamy drives ancestral sex roles. Evolution, 70, 1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12926
Leskinen, E. A., & Cortina, L. M. (2014). Dimensions of disrespect: Mapping and measuring gender harassment in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313496549
Liben, L. S. (2016). We’ve come a long way, baby (but we’re not there yet): Gender past, present, and future. Child Development, 87, 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12490
Lieberman, H., & Schatzberg, E. (2018). A failure of academic quality control: The technology of orgasm. Journal of Positive Sexuality, 4, 24–47. https://journalofpositivesexuality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Failure-of-Academic-Quality-Control-Technology-of-Orgasm-Lieberman-Schatzberg.pdf
Lippa, R. A. (2001). On deconstructing and reconstructing masculinity–femininity. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 168–207. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2307
Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lippa, R. A. (2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1098–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
Lohman, D. F., & Lakin, J. M. (2009). Consistencies in sex differences on the Cognitive Abilities Test across countries, grades, test forms, and cohorts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X354609
Lyle, H. F., & Smith, E. A. (2012). How conservative are evolutionary anthropologists? Human Nature, 23, 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9150-z
Mac Giolla, E., & Kajonius, P. J. (2019). Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding. International Journal of Psychology, 54, 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12529
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford University Press.
Machin, S., & Pekkarinen, T. (2008). Global sex differences in test score variability. Science, 322, 1331–1332. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1162573
Martin, A. E., & Slepian, M. L. (2020). The primacy of gender: Gendered cognition underlies the big two dimensions of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904961
McCaughey, M. (2007). The caveman mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the debates over sex, violence, and science. Routledge.
McKenna, W. (1978). Biological and commonsense constructions of gender. Paper presented at the Symposium on Biology and Society, American Psychological Association, Toronto.
McKenna, W., & Kessler, S. (1977). Experimental design as a source of sex bias in social psychology. Sex Roles, 3, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288663
McNemar, Q., & Terman, L. M. (1936). Sex differences in variational tendency. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 18, 1–65.
Money, J. (1955). Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic findings. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 96, 253–264.
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2020). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 1113–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902442
Morris, M. L. (2016). Vocational interests in the United States: Sex, age, ethnicity, and year effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000164
Morris, C. G., & Maisto, A. A. (2018). Understanding psychology (12th ed.). Pearson.
Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012966
Murray, C. (2020). Human diversity: The biology of gender, race, and class. Hachette Book Group.
Murray, D. R., Murphy, S. C., von Hippel, W., Trivers, R., & Haselton, M. G. (2017). A preregistered study of competing predictions suggests that men do overestimate women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science, 28, 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616675474
Nature. (2020). COVID research updates: A vaccine that mimics the coronavirus prompts potent antibodies. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00502-w
Nicolas, S. C. A., & Welling, L. L. M. (2015). The Darwinian mystique? Synthesizing evolutionary psychology and feminism. In V. Zeigler-Hill, L. M. Welling, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology (pp. 203–212). Springer.
Noba Project. (2020). Discover psychology 2.0 – A brief introductory text. Noba. https://nobaproject.com/textbooks/discover-psychology-v2-a-brief-introductory-text
Noddings, N. (1992). Variability—A pernicious hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 62, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062001085
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender, and society. Harper Colophon.
Pappas, S. (2019). APA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys. Monitor on Psychology, 50, 35–39.
Perilloux, C., & Kurzban, R. (2015). Do men overperceive women’s sexual interest? Psychological Science, 26, 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614555727
Pinker, S. (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Penguin.
Pluckrose, H., & Lindsay, J. A. (2020). Cynical theories: How activist scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity—And why this harms everybody. Pitchstone.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Reilly, D. (2019). Gender can be a continuous variable, not just a categorical one: Comment on Hyde, Bigler, Joel, Tate, and van Anders (2019). American Psychologist, 74, 840–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000505
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). American Psychologist, 74, 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000356
Reinhold, K., & Engqvist, L. (2013). The variability is in the sex chromosomes. Evolution, 67, 3662–3668. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12224
Reynolds, T. (2020). Retracting a controversial paper won’t help female scientists. Quillette. https://quillette.com/2020/11/23/retracting-a-controversial-paper-wont-help-female-scientists/
Rippon, G., Jordan-Young, R., Kaiser, A., & Fine, C. (2014). Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: Key principles and implications for research design, analysis, and interpretation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00650
Ritchie, S. J., Cox, S. R., Shen, X., Lombardo, M. V., Reus, L. M., Alloza, C., et al. (2018). Sex differences in the adult human brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank participants. Cerebral Cortex, 28, 2959–2975. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy109
Roughgarden, J. (2013). Evolution’s rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. University of California Press.
Saini, A. (2017). Inferior: How science got women wrong and the new research that’s rewriting the story. Beacon Press.
Satel, S. (2002). PC, MD: How political correctness is corrupting medicine. Perseus.
Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552139
Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., Nock, M. K., & Wegner, D. M. (2020). Psychology (5th ed.). Macmillan.
Schärer, L., Rowe, L., & Arnqvist, G. (2012). Anisogamy, chance and the evolution of sex roles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.12.006
Schmitt, D. P. (2015). The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are… it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 221–256). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09384-0_11
Schmitt, D. P., & the International Sexuality Description Project. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85
Schmitt, D. P., Long, A. E., McPhearson, A., O’Brien, K., Remmert, B., & Shah, S. H. (2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 52, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12265
Schwabacher, S. (1972). Male versus female representation in psychological research: An examination of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 1971. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents, 1972(2), 20–21.
Segerstråle, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford University Press.
Seller, M. (1981). G. Stanley Hall and Edward Thorndike on the education of women: Theory and policy in the progressive era. Educational Studies, 11, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326993es1104_2
Shields, S. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076948
Skewes, L., Fine, C., & Haslam, N. (2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLoS One, 13, e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921
Spielman, R. M. (Ed.). (2020). Psychology. Openstax. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology
Stanley, H. M. (1895). Studies in the evolutionary psychology of feeling. Sonnenschein.
Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). The ape that understood the universe: How the mind and culture evolve. Cambridge University Press.
Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24, 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.11.006
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2020). Sex-specific academic ability and attitude patterns in students across developed countries. Intelligence, 81, 101453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101453
Stoller, R. J. (1968). Sex and gender: The development of masculinity and femininity. Science House.
Taborsky, M., & Brockmann, H. J. (2010). Alternative reproductive tactics and life history phenotypes. In P. Kappeler (Ed.), Animal behavior: Evolution and mechanisms (pp. 537–586). Springer.
Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of woman. Simon & Schuster.
Taylor, S., Jr. (2005). Why feminist careerists neutered Larry Summers. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/
Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. McGraw-Hill.
Terman, L. M., Johnson, W. B., Kuznets, G., & McNemar, O. W. (1946). Psychological sex differences. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology (pp. 954–993). Wiley.
Thompson, H. (1903). The mental traits of sex: An experimental investigation of the normal mind in men and women. University of Chicago Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Sex in education. Bookman, 23, 211–214.
Treat, T. A., McMurray, B., Betty, J. R., & Viken, R. J. (2020). Tracking men’s perceptions of women’s sexual interest. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419884322
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766650
Tybur, J. M., & Navarrete, C. D. (2018). Interrupting bias in social psychology: Evolutionary psychology as a guide. In J. T. Crawford & L. Jussim (Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 247–264). Routledge.
Tybur, J. M., Miller, G. F., & Gangestad, S. W. (2007). Testing the controversy. An empirical examination of adaptationists’ attitudes toward politics and science. Human Nature, 18, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9024-y
Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.11.1085
Vandermassen, G. (2004). Sexual selection: A tale of male bias and feminist denial. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 11, 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506804039812
Vandermassen, G. (2020). Why the feminist aversion to biology is misguided. IDW: The magazine of the intellectual dark web. https://intellectualdarkwebanonymous.com/why-the-feminist-aversion-to-biology-is-misguided/
von Hippel, W., Buss, D. M., & Richardson, G. B. (2020). Science progresses through open disagreement: Rejoinder to Fine (2020). Archives of Scientific Psychology, 8, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000073
Wai, J., Cacchio, M., Putallaz, M., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30 year examination. Intelligence, 38, 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006
Wai, J., Hodges, J., & Makel, M. C. (2018). Sex differences in ability tilt in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 35-year examination. Intelligence, 67, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.003
Waters, T. E., Camia, C., Facompré, C. R., & Fivush, R. (2019). A meta-analytic examination of maternal reminiscing style: Elaboration, gender, and children’s cognitive development. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 1082–1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000211
Webermann, A. R., & Murphy, C. M. (2020). How can psychology help reduce gender-based violence and misconduct on college campuses? American Psychologist, 77, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000705
Weisstein, N. (1971). Psychology constructs the female; or the fantasy life of the male psychologist (with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and the male anthropologist). Social Education, 35, 362–373.
Winegard, B. M., & Winegard, B. (2018). Paranoid egalitarian meliorism. In J. T. Crawford & L. Jussim (Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 193–209). Routledge.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Once again, the origins of sex differences. American Psychologist, 55, 1062–1063. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1062
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7
Woolley, H. T. (1910). A review of the recent literature on the psychology of sex. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0066338
Woolley, H. T. (1914). The psychology of sex. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 353–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070064
Wyman, M. J., & Rowe, L. (2014). Male bias in distributions of additive genetic, residual, and phenotypic variances of shared traits. The American Naturalist, 184, 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/677310
Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208
Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Lane, T. N., & Teeter, S. R. (2016). Mars, Venus, or Earth? Sexism and the exaggeration of psychological gender differences. Sex Roles, 75, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0622-1
Acknowledgments
Warm thanks to Romina Angeleri, Mike Bailey, David Geary, and Richard Lippa for their helpful and constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Del Giudice, M. (2023). Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender. In: Frisby, C.L., Redding, R.E., O'Donohue, W.T., Lilienfeld, S.O. (eds) Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29148-7_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29148-7_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29147-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29148-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)