Cited by 291Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorSexual Differentiation and DisordersAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences

Archer, John·2019·Biological Reviews

Abstract

The aims of this article are: (i) to provide a quantitative overview of sex differences in human psychological attributes; and (ii) to consider evidence for their possible evolutionary origins. Sex differences were identified from a systematic literature search of meta‐analyses and large‐sample studies. These were organized in terms of evolutionary significance as follows: (i) characteristics arising from inter‐male competition (within‐sex aggression; impulsiveness and sensation‐seeking; fearfulness; visuospatial and object‐location memory; object‐centred orientations); (ii) those concerning social relations that are likely to have arisen from women's adaptations for small‐group interactions and men's for larger co‐operative groups (person‐centred orientation and social skills; language; depression and anxiety); (iii) those arising from female choice (sexuality; mate choice; sexual conflict). There were sex differences in all categories, whose magnitudes ranged from (i) small (object location memory; negative emotions), to (ii) medium (mental rotation; anxiety disorders; impulsivity; sex drive; interest in casual sex), to (iii) large (social interests and abilities; sociosexuality); and (iv) very large (escalated aggression; systemizing; sexual violence). Evolutionary explanations were evaluated according to whether: (i) similar differences occur in other mammals; (ii) there is cross‐cultural consistency; (iii) the origin was early in life or at puberty; (iv) there was evidence for hormonal influences; and (v), where possible, whether there was evidence for evolutionarily derived design features. The evidence was positive for most features in most categories, suggesting evolutionary origins for a broad range of sex differences. Attributes for which there was no sex difference are also noted. Within‐sex variations are discussed as limitations to the emphasis on sex differences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/brv.12507

Cites

489 of 489 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The same was true here for an indicator of physical violence (homicide), another prominent example argued to reflect adaptive differences.

    “The same was true here for an indicator of physical violence (homicide), another prominent example argued to reflect adaptive differences (36).”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [36]

  • Early corpus-based and interactional studies documented that men often favor object-focused discourse, while women more frequently deploy relational and interactive strategies.

    “Early corpus -based and interactional studies documented broad tendencies; men often favor object -focused discourse, while women more frequently deploy relational and interactive strategies (Cameron, 1997; Holmes, 2008; Archer, 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Archer, J.
Affiliations
University of Lancashire (GB)
Corresponding author
Archer, John
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-20
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
1381-1415
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2918509313
Cited by
291
References
489
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 7
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Sexual Differentiation and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
sex differences, human psychology, evolutionary origin, female mate choice, sociosexuality, sexual conflict, mate choice, aggression, impulsivity, sensation seeking, fearfulness, object location memory, mental rotation, social skills, language, depression, anxiety, sexual violence, systemizing, endocrine effects, cross-cultural consistency
MeSH terms
Aggression, Biological Evolution, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Characteristics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review