Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Integrating approaches requires more than a division of labour: commentary on Wӧlfer & Hewstone

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate


Wӧlfer and Hewstone (2015; hereafter W&H) argue that evolutionary psychology (EP) is useful for understanding sex differences in same-sex aggression, while social role theory (SRT) is best applied to sex differences in opposite-sex aggression. W&H tested this proposal using a rich dataset on high school students’ peer-reported aggression. They regressed classroom-level sex differences in same- and opposite-sex aggression onto five variables drawn from the two theoretical positions. Three variables (gender and masculinity norms, derived from SRT and body dimorphism, derived from EP) did not differ in their association with the two forms of aggression. Another variable (sex ratio: EP) was not interpretable because it was confounded with number of available targets, leaving a fifth (male hierarchy: EP) predicting sex differences in same-sex but not opposite-sex aggression. Our focus is not on the study itself, but on their proposal that theoretical disputes between EP and SRT can be resolved by assigning one form of aggression to EP and another to SRT. We believe that this argument mischaracterises both theories, reinforces the ‘evolutionary vs social’ divide, and falls short of integration.


Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)248-250
JournalPsychological Science
Issue number2
Early online date10 Jan 2017
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2017

    Research areas

  • Sex differences, Aggressive behavior, Evolutionary psychology, Sex role attitudes, Cross cultural differences

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Human mate-choice copying is domain-general social learning

    Street, S. E., Morgan, T. J. H., Thornton, A., Brown, G. R., Laland, K. N. & Cross, C. P., 29 Jan 2018, In : Scientific Reports. 8, 1715.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Sex differences in the use of social information emerge under conditions of risk

    Brand, C. O., Brown, G. R. & Cross, C. P., 3 Jan 2018, In : PeerJ. 6, 18 p., e4190.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Sex differences in confidence influence patterns of conformity

    Cross, C. P., Brown, G. R., Morgan, T. J. H. & Laland, K. N., Nov 2017, In : British Journal of Psychology. 108, 4, p. 655-667

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. Father absence and gendered traits in sons and daughters

    Boothroyd, L. G. & Cross, C. P., 5 Jul 2017, In : PLoS One. 12, 7, 19 p., e0179954.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related by journal

  1. Young children show the bystander effect in helping situations

    Plötner, M., Over, H., Carpenter, M. & Tomasello, M., Apr 2015, In : Psychological Science. 26, 4, p. 499-506

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Forgiving you is hard, but forgetting seems easy: can forgiveness facilitate forgetting?

    Noreen, S., Bierman, R. & MacLeod, M. D., Jul 2014, In : Psychological Science. 25, 7, p. 1295-1302

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Great apes generate goal-based action predictions: an eye-tracking study

    Kano, F. & Call, J., 27 Sep 2014, In : Psychological Science. 25, 9, p. 1691-1698 8 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. Seeing in 3D with just one eye: Stereopsis without binocular vision

    Vishwanath, D. & Hibbard, P. B., Sep 2013, In : Psychological Science. 24, 9, p. 1673-1685 13 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ID: 244332846