Gender Inequality in Interaction - An Evolutionary Account

Rosemary L. Hopcroft, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

In this article I argue that evolutionary theorizing can help

sociologists and feminists better understand gender inequality.
Evolutionary theory explains why control of the sexuality of
young women is a priority across most human societies both
past and present. Evolutionary psychology has extended our
understanding of male violence against women. Here I add to
these theories and present a sexual selection argument to postulate
possible evolved predispositions that promote young female
deference to adult males in interaction and the converse, lack of
male deference to youngfemales. According to this argument, the
pattern ofgreater female deference disappears when the women
involved are past menopause. Put together, these ideas form an
evolutionary account ofgender inequality that complements and
extends traditional sociological and feminist theories.

There is much experimental evidence from both sociological and non-

sociological studies that gender is a potent differentiating factor in small
group interactions. Controlled laboratory experiments with mixed-sex
groups of college students show how women defer to men, while men do
notdeferto women. Women participate less in non-sex typed experimental
tasks, have lower levels of influence, receive lower evaluations of their
performance, and are allocated fewer rewards than men (Pugh and
Wahrman 1983; Wood and Karten 1986; Smith-Lovin, Skvoretz and Hudson
1986; Driskell et. al. 1993; Griffith, Sell and Parker 1993; Walker et. al.
1996; Wagner and Berger 1997; Carii 1999; Troyer 2001; Hopcroft 2002).
Research also shows that it is only in mixed-sex interactions that the sex
difference in deference behavior emerges. Absolute rates of deference in
all male groups are similar to deference rates in all female groups (Foschi,
Enns and Lapointe 2001). These findings are consistent with those of
other experimental studies that show an effect of gender on the number
of interruptions in conversations (see Kollock, Blumstein and Schwartz
1985; Smith-Lovin and Brody 1989), on jury decision-making (Propp 1995),
and on compliance to authority (Ridgway and Berger 1986; Driskell et al.
1993; CarIi 1999).
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, Christine Horne, François
Nielsen and Joe Whitmeyer for helpful comments on this article. Direct correspondence
to Rosemary L. Hopcroft, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte NC 28223-0001. Phone: 704-687-
4156. E-mail: rlhopcro@uncc.edu.
© The Univefsity of North Carolina Press Social Forces 87(4): 1845-72. June 2009
1846 • Sod«/forces 87(4)

The findings from the analysis of small group interactions described aboye
may have real world implications. For example, they are seemingly echoed
by aggregate-level findings that being female, all else being equal, loweVs
occupational attainment outcomes such as wages and authority (Reskiin
and Ross 1992; Long 1993; Hopcroft 1996; Gintherand Hayes 1999). More
qualitative research on the same issues suggests the existence of glass
ceilings for women, and subtle workplace discrimination against women
(Labarid and Lentz 1993; Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia and Vanneman 2001). i
Many feminists and sociologists accept that these inequalities are socially
constructed in some way (see Wagner and Berger 1997; Glenn 1999; Carii
and Eagly 1999; Ferrée and Hall 2000; Epstein 2007). Risman (2001:600)
writes as follows "Currently, gender has come to be conceptualized asja
stratification system - an institution or structure that has consequences
for inciividual identities and the expectations of others" (see also Ferrée
and Hall 2000; Risman 2004). In this view, biological femaleness puts
an individual at a disadvantage in contemporary American society, while
biological maleness puts an individual at an advantage. According to such
theories of gender inequality, male advantage is a situational parameter
that females are forced to deal with.
In this article, I suggest that evolutionary theorizing can help explain
gender inequality in interaction and the ubiquity of male domination in most
societies. Evolutionary sociologists base their theorizing on the concept
of an evolved actor - an actor who is a product of evolution by natural
selection and who therefore comes equipped with both physiological
and psychological adaptations that helped the human species survi\je
and reproduce in the evolutionary past. The ability to develop an elaborate
culture is an evolved trait of humans, but evolutionary theorists conten'd
that cultural content itself is not devoid of influence from evolvejd
predispositions (Wilson 1978; Pinker 2002). With regard to sex difference's,
Trivers' (1972) theory of differential parental investment suggests that
men and women have slightly different reproductive interests that have
led to bex differences in mate preferences and parenting behavior. Frotti
a biological point of view, human females invest more in reproductio!n
than niales. Human females are responsible for the biological resourceis
and time necessary for gestation and (until very recently) prolonge'd
nursing (Huber 2007, 2008). In the evolutionary past, those females whb
found mates who would invest in non-biological ways (e.g., provisioning,
defense) in their offspring left more descendants than those who did ncit,
ensuring selection for predispositions for this behavior. Those males who
found additional fertile mates left more descendants than those who did
not, ensuring selection for predispositions for this behavior. Given this, w|e
can expect evolved predispositions that encourage females to find high
quality mates who are both willing and able to invest in non-biological ways
 Gender Inequality in Interaction • 1847

in their joint offspring, while we can expect evolved predispositions that

encourage males to find additional fertile mates (Buss 1994; Kanazawa
2001 ; Lopreato and Crippen 2002; Sanderson 2001 ). Given greater female
fixed investment in offspring, we can also expect evolved predispositions
that encourage greater female commitment to children.
Evolutionary sociologists suggest that such evolved predispositions
influence contemporary men and women's work and family preferences,
thus contributing to observed outcomes. For example, Rossi (1984) notes
differences in how men and women parent, and suggests that these are
likely related to evolved biological predispositions. Lopreato and Crippen
(2002) suggest that evolved female and male preferences may help account
for sex differences in career choices and some sex differences in workplace
outcomes. Udry's (1995, 2000) research shows that masculine preferences
and behavior (e.g., importance of career vs. family, choice of occupation)
that may have implications for status attainment, are influenced by
hormonal contexts in utero. Women who have been exposed to high levels
of androgens in utero through their mother's bloodstream are more likely to
be masculine in their interests and behavior 30 years later than women not
exposed to high levels of androgens. The mechanism here is exposure to
male hormones, which like everything in biology is a product of evolution. All
these theorists point to evolved male and female predispositions that help
to create observed statistical differences in male and female occupational
preferences and attitudes toward parenting.
It is important to note that theorizing the existence of evolved
predispositions that influence behavior does not negate traditional
sociological theory and the importance of norms, roles, beliefs, identities
and attitudes in shaping gendered behavior. Nor does it negate many
sociological theories' emphasis on historical legacies and material
contexts in determining norms and social institutions (Blumberg 1978;
Chafetz 1984; Collins et al. 1993; Huber 2007, 2008). This is because
evolved predispositions help shape the norms, roles and beliefs about
gender that emerge in all societies, given historical legacies and material
contexts. Such norms and beliefs vary from society to society, for example
norms governing male and female conduct in the public sphere differ
greatly, but consistent with the theory of differential parental investment
women have a greater responsibility for children than men in all societies
(Brown 1991; Maryanski and Turner 1992; Huber 2007). Hence, rather
than a competitor to sociological theory, evolutionary theory should be
considered a necessary theoretical foundation, helping to explain why,
in interaction with social and material contexts, certain norms, roles,
attitudes and beliefs emerge in a society (Lopreato and Crippen 2002: 205).
This article reviews arguments for the evolutionary origin of male
dominance in society developed by a number of evolutionary theorists.
1848 . Social Forces 87(4)

notably Mildred Dickemann, Sarah Hrdy, Barbara Smuts, Patricia Gowaty,

Martin Daly and Margo Wilson. These theorists suggest that an interest in
the domination and control of the sexual behavior of their female mates
is likely to be an evolved predisposition in males. This interest is typically
expressed in societal institutions and norms that serve to privilege mien
and control and dominate women.
In addition, this article presents a new hypothesis to account for the
sex difference in deference behaviors in small group interactions. This
hypothesis is derived from Trivers' (1972) theory of relative parental
investment. It posits the existence of a sexually-selected, evolv.ed
predisposition that promotes young female deference to adult males (and
lack of the reverse) in interaction. This predisposition is likely unconscious
in all individuals, and individuals may be unaware of the deference
behavior it promotes. It also takes a different form in males and females
- for females it promotes deference to males, for males it promotes a
lack pf deference to females. This is because it is a sexually-selectied
predisposition that promoted mate acquisition in ancestral environments
(and perhaps current environments), and Trivers' theory of relative parental
inves^tment suggests that males and females seek somewhat different
characteristics in a long-term mate. The hypothesis of such an evolved
predisposition is consistent with a great deal of evidence and research
from both in and outside of sociology. I further argue that rather than being
a competitor to sociological theories and hypotheses, this hypothesis is
entirely consistent with existing sociological approaches and can add_to
and enhance such approaches. '

Control of Female Sexuality

For some feminists, control and attempted control of female sexuality

is at the core of patriarchy or male dominance in society (Mackinhon
1982,1987). For Butler (1999), gender itself is a social construction that
serves to regulate sexuality. Such feminists (sometimes referred tojas
gender feminists, see Sommers 1994) hold that women continue to ¡be
ensnared by a pervasive system of male dominance (Lorber 1994). l}Jot
all feminists agree. Equity feminists, for example, oppose discriminatory
laws and discrimination by sex, but often do not seek to analyze the
causes of such discrimination (Sommers 1994). Their primary goal is the
enlightenment goal - of equality of all individuals before the law. |
Evolutionary theory can help both gender feminists and equity feminists
alike explain why patriarchal cultures and discrimination by sex are
commonly found across human societies, and are surprisingly persistent
in our own society. Evolutionary theory suggests that the physiological and
behavioral traits of all species (including humans) evolved because they
 Gender Inequality in Interaction • 1849

promoted the survival and reproduction of the individual members of the

species in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (Bowlby 1969). For
humans, the EEA is usually inferred to be the environment where humans
emerged as a species - East Africa during the Pleistocene (Bowlby 1969;
Tooby and Cosmides 1990; Maryanski and Turner 1992). Throughout most
of this time humans are likely to have lived in small groups of hunters and
gatherers, and it is to this social and material environment that our bodies
and psyches are likely adapted. This does not mean that physiological and
behavioral traits are adaptive in the current environment (although they
may be); nor does it imply that survival and reproduction are conscious
goals (although they may be).
In pair-bonded, sexually reproducing species, a corollary of this theory
is that males are likely to have a behavioral trait that encourages them
to control the sexual behavior of their mates (Trivers 1972). Why? One
important reason is paternity uncertainty. Because gestation occurs in the
female body, there is always the possibility of doubt about paternity. Males
can be cuckolded, that is they can invest time and resources in offspring
that are not their own. This is particularly true in the case of humans,
who are characterized by long-term pair bonds and comparatively high
male investment in offspring. Since being cuckolded is a reproductive
disaster for a parentally investing male, then evolution by natural selection
may be expected to have designed males to be inclined to monitor their
mates' sexual behavior carefully, so as to ensure that the children their
mate bears are, in fact, their own (Trivers 1972). In addition, because a
man's relatives also have reproductive interests in ensuring his paternity,
they can be expected to help him in this task. Even the woman's own
relatives, who have reproductive interests in continued male investment
in the woman's offspring, are likely to have traits that encourage the
policing of the woman's sexual behavior in order to enhance the likelihood
of continued investment (Apostolou 2007). Once again, individuals may
not be conscious of the ultimate goal of these efforts. Thus, evolutionary
theory suggests that widespread concerns with female sexuality are based
in part on the evolved male predisposition to avoid cuckoldry (Dickemann
1979, 1981; Hrdy 1997; Gowaty 1992, 1997; Sanderson 2001).
Individuals are likely to be unaware of their own motivations and the
evolved nature of these motivations, and they may explain their own
behavior to themselves in terms sociologists are more familiar with:
values, norms, roles, "family honor," "face," etc. The methods for the
control of female sexuality do vary somewhat from group to group, but in
all societies the ultimate goal is the same - the control of female sexuality
in order to give males paternity certainty.
All males of species where the female gestates the young and both
parents invest in offspring face the problem of paternity certainty, and yet
1850 • Socirt/forces 87(4)

human societies often involve greater male oppression of females than

is typical of other primate societies (Smuts 1996). Oppressive control of
women by men is most likely in highly stratified societies with a great d!eal
of hereditary inequality (Lenski 1984). Smuts (1995) suggests that male
oppression of women may be explained as an extension of male behavior
to control the sexuality of their mates, given contexts specific to the hundan
species: high male parental investment, female dispersion away from kin
at marriage, and the existence of alliances between related males.l In
highly stratified societies, male concern with paternity certainty is greatest
because they have the most invested in children (e.g., bequests of property
and position) and more to lose if those investments are misplaced. Such
concerns typically lead to the creation of patriarchal cultures, which in turn
give use to a great variety of practices intended to create male control and
femaie subordination. These include direct attempts to control female
sexuality such as the use of close observation and chaperoning of womjen,
purdah, female seclusion and confinement, as well as cruder forms'of
sexual control such as the use of chastity belts, female circumcision
and ihfibulation (van den Berghe 1979; Dickemann 1981). They also
include indirect attempts at controlling women's behavior and sexuality
through practices such as footbinding, tolerance of wifebeating, ahd
institutional rules preventing women from owning property or obtaining
an education, and other rules restricting the freedom and mobilitylof
women and maintaining male control over resources (Pratto 1996; Bu'ss
1996;'Dickemann 1979; Smuts 1996). An important component of su'ch
indire^ct methods is ideological, including sexual double standards and
argurtients about the innate inferiority of women (Hrdy 1981). In ma'ny
agrarian societies, and in Western societies until very recently, wom¡en
are legally the property of men. The law codes of ancient Babylon are the
first known to describe women as the possessions of men (Lerner 1986).

Male Sexual Jealousy

Direct attempts to control women's sexuality, and the institutions (informal

and otherwise) that serve this purpose, can be explained simply with
respe'ct to male reproductive interests, and there is no need to p|ay
attention to any psychological mechanisms that may be involved. However,
recently, evolutionary psychologists have suggested that a focus on
evolved psychological mechanisms can explain contemporary behaviors
(such as uxoricide) that serve no one's apparent reproductive interests;.
According to evolutionary psychology, our psyches contain specific
evolved predispositions or psychological mechanisms. These psychological
mechanisms are context-sensitive, but are essentially cognitive short cuts
that repeatedly solved adaptive problems typically faced by our forager
 Gender Inequality in Interaction .1851

ancestors in Africa (Bowlby 1969; Tooby and Cosmides 1992; Betzig 1997-
Ridley 1993; de Waal 1996; Buss 1999; Cziko 2000). A good example of
such an evolved psychological mechanism is a male predisposition to be
sexually jealous (Teismann and Mosher 1978; Daly Wilson and Weghorst
1982; Buss et al. 1992). In the EEA, those males who were sexually jealous
of their mates were less likely to suffer cuckoldry than those who were
not sexually jealous. Hence, sexually jealous males were more likely to be
reproductively successful than non-sexually jealous males, thus ensuring
selection for this trait. Thus, we would expect that males would be more
likely to exhibit sexual jealousy than females, and there is evidence that
this is the case (Buss et al. 1992; Easton, Schipper and Shackelford 2007).
Similar findings from self-report data have been found in the United States,
Germany the Netherlands, Korea and Japan (Buunk et al. 1996).
According to evolutionary psychologists, it is the psychological
mechanism of male sexual jealousy that underlies many male attempts
to control female behavior, including sexist laws and physical aggression.
Importantly, although this behavior is hypothesized to have been
adaptive in the EEA, it may not serve anyone's reproductive interests in
contemporary environments. For example, Wilson and Daly (1992) argue
that this mechanism underlies the tendency for many men to think of their
wives as their property Male sexual jealousy also frequently fuels wife
abuse (Wilson, Johnson and Daly 1995). Male sexual jealousy has been
particularly used to explain one activity that clearly cannot be explained
by male reproductive interests - uxoricide or wife killing. Daly and Wilson
(1998) persuasively argue that wife killing is a result of fulfilling threats
aimed at controlling and confining wives. This typically occurs after the
woman has just left the man. Young wives are more likely to be the
victims because they are the most reproductively valuable, and therefore
husbands are most at risk of losing them to other men.
Another consequence of male sexual jealousy is male discomfort with
wives who have greater status and resources than themselves. What
many have termed threats to male ego may be (not necessarily conscious)
threats to the male's reproductive interests. A woman who has greater
status and resources than her husband threatens his reproductive interests
because she may find a higher status mate more to her liking. Furthermore,
she is less dependent and therefore her behavior is less controllable than
that of a lower status female (Daly and Wilson 2000).

An Evolved Predisposition for Deference Behavior?

The factors mentioned so far seem likely to promote female deference

to males, and the lack of the reverse, particularly in societies where
there are formal rules controlling the behavior of women. Yet are these
1852 . Socia/Forces 87(4)

factors enough to fully explain the deference behavior of young women

in the contemporary United States? In U.S. society most of the formal
institutional constraints on women have been removed, and ideologies
of the inferiority of women are publicly frowned on. Sexual jealousy is
also publicly disapproved, however much private expectation there n^iay
be of the phenomenon. Resource inequalities between men and women
have also been reduced, although not eradicated. Certainly, male violence
againist women is still a reality and may play a role promoting defererjce
behaviors in college-aged women. However, it seems unlikely that fear of
physical violence is enough to explain why young women typically defer
to men when involved in non-sex typed tasks in experimental settings'.
Beginning at puberty women also have lower self esteem than nien,
and this may be related to the onset of deference behavior. Young wonien
may think their deference behavior results from their inability to be more
assertive, and the result may be low self esteem. A recent meta-analysis
of 150 psychological studies of global self esteem (defined as the level
of global regard that one has for the self as a person) shows that the sex
gap in self esteem is greatest in the 15-18 age range (Kling et al. 1999).
This happens despite the fact that by many measures, girls at this age in
the United States are doing objectively better than boys - they get better
gradés, have fewer behavioral and disciplinary problems, and are more likely
to go to college than boys (Fisher 1999:82). Qualitative studies also shbw
the decline in female confidence and certainty at adolescence (Brown and
Gilligan 1992). Brown and Gilligan's (1992) study was done in an elite private
girls':school among girls who were likely to have every opportunity in ilife.
Why would their self confidence be eroded at puberty? Certainly, there :are
few differences in resources between teenage boys and girls. Brown and
Gilligan (1992) argue that our sexist culture strikes at girls during puberty,
stripping girls of their self esteem. It seems odd that our patriarchal culture
should wait until that precise moment to ensnare girls.
All evolutionär/ arguments suggest that modern social behaviors can be
explained by evolved predispositions common to all humans, in conjunction
withjthe social and material environment. Evolved predispositions exist
because they were adaptive (i.e., repeatedly promoted the reproductive
success) for our human ancestors in the EEA. Why would a tendency to
defer to a potential mate have been adaptive for young women (butjnot
for young men) in the EEA? The age range of 15 through 18 is significant
because these are the years after menarche, and the years when young
females in the EEA would have been most involved in finding a long-t^rm
mate as is typical in a pair bonded species such as our own. I argue
that female deference behavior towards males may be a product of an
evolved psychological mechanism or predisposition that emerges during
adolescence and is present (albeit in different forms) in both males and
 Gender Inequality in Interaction . 1853

females. In young females, this psychological mechanism promotes

deference behaviors to males but not otfier females; in males this
mechanism promotes lack of deference to females but not other males.
There are almost certainly hormonal and other proximal causes behind this
predisposition. For example, female deference towards males appears
to emerge at puberty and thus female sex hormones are likely involved;
while male lack of deference toward females likely involves androgens.
In the evolutionary period such a psychological mechanism would
have been adaptive because it helped individuals solve the problem of
finding a long-term mate. Hence, my evolutionary argument is a sexual
selection argument (Trivers 1972). These sexually-selected deference
behaviors need to be disentangled from other deference behaviors, for
example, deference between same-sex individuals purely on the basis
of rank or class, or even deference based on height or facial features
(Mueller and Mazur 1997). In these situations deference arguably serves
a variety of purposes, but does not directly influence mate acquisition.
I do not contend that this psychological mechanism is adaptive in the
contemporary world (although it may be).
Evolutionary biologists differentiate between two types of evolutionary
arguments for the existence of traits - arguments that the trait was
adaptive in the EEA because it enhanced access to resources for the
individual in that particular physical environment (natural selection); and
arguments that the trait was adaptive in the EEA because it enhanced
access to mates in that particular social environment (sexual selection).
Sexual selection is determined by differential parental investment, with
the most sexual selection operating on the sex that invests the least
(Trivers 1972). The best-known example of sexual selection is that of the
peacock's tail (Cronin 1991). The fabulous, multi-colored peacock's tail
hinders the mobility and hence survivability of the peacock. It has been
selected for because peahens preferentially mated with those peacocks'
with the most flamboyant tails, among other factors. There has been
more sexual selection on male peacocks' plumage than female peahens'
plumage because the peacocks invest the least in the offspring.
For humans, sexual selection arguments have been used to explain the
difference in male and female facial appearance. Child-like, neotenous
facial features (hairlessness, a light skin, large eyes and lips, a small
chin, small nose) evolved in young women because these features were
attractive to men and enhanced female reproductive success in the
EEA (Jones 1995). These features were attractive to men because they
advertise youth, and men prefer young women to old women as mates,
a preference which was (and still is) adaptive as it helps men maximize
their chances of having viable, healthy offspring (van den Berghe and
Frost 1986; Kenrick and Keefe 1992; Buunk et al. 2001 ). Men (and women)
1854 • Social Forces 87(4)

in contemporary societies continue to find neotenous facial features

attractive in women (Buss 1989; Etcoff 1999:139; Langlois et al. 20(30),
and vvomen with attractive faces continue to have greater mating success
than less attractive women (Rhodes, Simmons and Peters 2005). ¡
According to Trivers (1972), "Where investment is equal, sexiüal
selection should operate similarly on the two sexes." Given that humean
fathers often invest heavily in their children, sexual selection is expected
to haye operated on both sexes among humans. Here I suggest that this
has riBsulted in a trait in females promoting deference towards maljes,
and a trait in males promoting lack of deference towards females. In wtjiat
follows I outline the sexual selection arguments for the existence of the
female trait and the male trait separately. \
A predisposition toward deference behavior to adult males (but notjto
other females) may have been sexually selected in human females becaijse
it advertised both youtii and the promise of controiiabiiity in the future,
characteristics that would have been highly desirable to prospective mates
in the EEA. The promise of controllability in the future would have been
attractive to males because it enhanced the likelihood of paternity certaiijity.
Such behavior in young females would have promoted their value on the
marriage market. Further, greater paternity certainty for males would h^ve
helped secure male services of protection and provision of meat, which
would have enhanced the female's reproductive fitness in the evolutionary
settirig. This would have been particularly important in the EEA where
threats from both human and non-human predators were greater th|an
they are in the modern period, and where females probably followed the
typical great ape pattern of female dispersal away from kin, and thus faqed
reduced support from kin and female allies (Smuts 1995; Campbell 2002).
Giveri restrictions on the mobility of pregnant females and the long periods
of nursing necessary when human infants are young, in the absence¡ of
their own kin, females would have been almost entirely dependent ¡on
unrelated males for the high quality food (meat and other animal protein)
required during this period. Finding an attentive mate who would provision
and protect both her and her offspring effectively during the gestation and
nursing period would have been essential for young females, and any tj-ait
that helped a female accomplish this would have been selected for. :
There is no reason to expect the evolution of a predisposition in young
women to defer to other young women however. Such a trait would have
given no reproductive advantages in the EEA, and probably would have
been,disadvantageous, assuming that young women were in competition
with other young women for resources, status and the attention of high
status men (Campbell 1995, 2002).
Such a predisposition toward deference by young females toward adult
males is consistent with the experimental studies showing that young
 Gender Inequality in Interaction • 1855

women defer to men (but not other young women) in problem solving
and task situations. In a study of six-person discussion groups, males in
mixed-sex groups showed higher rates of participation in the group activity,
although overall participation rates were similar to those found in all-female
and all-male groups (Smith-Lovin, Skvoretz and Hudson 1986). Other
experimental studies of pairs of male and female participants involved
in a non-sex typed task (with no information given linking gender to the
task) show that young women are more likely to accept influence from
young men concerning the task than the reverse (Pugh and Wahrman 1983;
Troyer 2001 ; Hopcroft 2002); while average tendencies to accept or reject
influence in all-male and all-female groups are ven/ similar (Foschi, Enns and
Lapointe 2001 ). A study of young adolescent boys' and girls' participation in
same and mixed-sex dodgeball games showed a similar finding (Weisfeld,
Weisfeld and Callaghan 1982). Scores for girls in the high-skill girls' group
and scores for boys in the high-skill boys' group were very similar. High-skill
girls' behavior changed markedly when playing in the mixed-sex games
such that highly skilled girls were inhibited when competing against boys
(especially low-skill boys), but not girls. In another study of interaction in
mixed-sex dyads, males evaluated the quantity and the quality of their
group interactions higher than females evaluated theirs, although objective
observers found no difference in actual interactions. Women in same sex
dyads did not misjudge their contributions, suggesting that they saw their
contributions as inferior only in comparison to those of men (CarIi 1989).
These studies are mostly of young men and women of similar ages. Ven/
few experimental studies use individuals of different age groups. Research
shows that age acts as a status characteristic in interactions (Freese and
Cohen 1973; Hembroff, Martin and Sell 1981; Martin and Sell 1985; Troyer
and Younts 1997). Young people typically defer to older people in interactions.
Given this, it is logical to infer that young women are likely to defer to an
even greater extent to men who are substantially older than they
Deference behavior towards men may sometimes be intentional (e.g.,
"playing dumb"), just as women intentionally try to attract better mates
by spending time and resources in order to look as young, healthy and
attractive as possible. However, I suggest that while deference behavior
in the company of men may sometimes be intentional, generally the
tendency towards this behavior is a result of an evolved psychological
mechanism and is therefore automatic and unconscious in most women.
This lack of consciousness of deference behavior is illustrated by the study
of young adolescents playing dodgeball (Weisfeld, Weisfeld and Callaghan
1982). Both females and males changed their behavior when playing the
game with others of the opposite sex - the girls became more inhibited
when playing the game with boys, and the boys improved their playing
when playing the game with girls. This was found across two, culturally
1856 . Soda/forces 87(4)

diverse groups of adolescents (Hopi Indians in New Mexico and middle-

class blacks in Chicago). Despite the fact that these changes in behavior
were marked, when quizzed about this after the games neither the boys' or
girls were aware of changes in their own behavior. Further, there is sorjne
evidence that deferential behavior (more hesitant or tentative speech)
does help women gain influence with males in the small group (Carii 1990),
evidence that deference behavior by females does influence male behavjor.
An average tendency towards deference to males does not mean that
all women defer, all the time, or that it was or is an absolute guarantee
of paternity certainty Evidence from medical studies and DNA testing
labs in the United States and elsewhere suggest that between 5 a|nd
30 percent of the offspring of married women are not the biological
children of the putative father (Anderlik and Rothstein 2002). Clearly! in
the contemporary environment some women are not controlled by their
mates when it comes to sexual behavior, and no doubt this was true' in
the EEA also. However, for a trait to have evolved, it simply would have
had to provide fitness benefits to most individuals, on average. We cian
assume that deference behavior did provide a certain amount of male
control over female behavior, and that this was enough to give benefits^ to
both the woman and her offspring (provisioning) and the man (paterrjity
certainty), most of the time. There may also have been additional fitness
benefits to women who were able to convince their mate that they were
controllable (and hence faithful) while at the same time pursuing outside
sexual relationships.
Similarly I also suggest that a predisposition in men (males past puberty)
of all ages not to defer to young women may also have been sexually
selected, as this trait may have signaled high status and dominan|ce,
characteristics attractive to prospective mates. Lack of deference toward
young women would have had advantages for men for both short- and
long-term mating, as there is much evidence that women in all cultures find
high status men attractive as both short and long term mates (Buss 1989).
In fact, this characteristic is likely to be most pronounced for short-term
mating, as women involved in short-term mating are not looking for other
characteristics desirable in a long-term mate such as love and commitment,
and are likely to be only interested in characteristics associated with genetic
quality such as appearance, status and resources (Gangestad and Simpson
1990; Kenrick et al. 1990; Buss and Schmitt 1993). Lack of defererice
toward young women may also be associated with paternalism, and sunj/ey
evidence suggests that many females in a variety of different cultures
find some forms of paternalism in males desirable (see Glick and Fiske
2001 ). Given that it is reasonable to suppose that such women would find
men who endorse paternalistic attitudes attractive as mates, this research
lends support to the idea that young women in the EEA may also have
 Gender Inequality in Interaction • 1857

found such (benevolently) discriminatory tendencies in males attractive.

This would have promoted selection for this trait.
Contemporary evidence consistent with a male tendency not to defer to
young females comes from experimental research (conducted with mixed
groups of male and female college students), which shows that males
tend to reject influence from females more than females reject influence
from males (Pugh and Wahrman 1983; Troyer 2001; Hopcroft 2002). As
previously noted, experiments show that men judge the quantity and
quality of their group interactions higher than women do theirs, and that
men are more likely to participate in group tasks in mixed-sex groups (Carli
1989; Smith-Lovin, Skvoretz and Hudson 1986). Anecdotal evidence on
strategies for obtaining short-term mates suggests that lack of deference
is an effective strategy on the part of males (Feynman 1985).
Like the peacock's tail, it is likely that despite the reproductive
advantages these predispositions conferred they also imposed costs on
the individuals that possessed them. It is reasonable to suppose that a
tendency of women to deferto men, and men not to deferto women, would
have been detrimental to both women and men in the EEA, as the abilities
and contributions of women to the group would have been underutilized
as a result. It is also reasonable to suppose that female deference behavior
would simultaneously signal lack of competence. For example, the female
inhibition exhibited in the dodgeball studies described above (Weisfeld,
Weisfeld and Callaghan 1982) may be interpreted (erroneously) by their
male opponents as a lack of skill at dodgeball. Such a conclusion of lack of
skill or incompetence in the EEA may have acted as a deterrent to potential
mates. How can this have been adaptive for women in the EEA?
First, the costs of deference in terms of group production would be
limited by the fact deference behaviors were no doubt context dependent,
just as they are today. Experiments have shown that gender effects can be
overcome by various manipulations of context and information, for example,
the overt demonstration of high levels of skills by women, suggesting that
deference tendencies do not override all other considerations and can
be offset by other evidence (Pugh and Wahrman 1983; Wood and Karten
1986; Wagnerand Berger 1997; Foddyand Smithson 1999). Presumably in
the EEA individuals would have been equally sensitive to context and other
information, and this would have served to mitigate any non-adaptive
consequences of deference behaviors.
Second, deference behavior does not mean actual incompetence on
the part of women. Women may defer even if they are highly competent. If
we accept that deference behaviors may sometimes signal incompetence,
then assuming gender segregation of most subsistence tasks in the EEA,
there would have been little chance for these predispositions to come
into play and so have any detrimental effects for women and men. Most
1858 • Sod«/Forces 87(4)

males would only have worked with other males on productive activities,
and most females would have only worked with other females. Males and
females would rarely have been involved in production together, where
a female predisposition to defer could signal incompetence. Thus for
women in the EEA these predispositions would only have been likely |to
be consequential in male domains in which female competence would rípt
be deemed important by potential mates. '
Last, the primary selective pressure in evolution is on successfjul
reproduction, and any costs due to the neglect of female abilities an'd/
or presumptions of incompetence would not have adversely affected the
successful reproduction of individuals in the group. This is because any
costs to individuals that stemmed from this predisposition would have
been compensated for by the reproductive benefits of this bias - namely,
the securing by males of mates, and the securing by females of the
protection and provisioning services of males during gestation and nursitng.
This is the whole basis of a sexual selection argument - predispositions
towards costly displays secure successful reproduction, and this is why
they were selected for initially. !

Deference Behaviors End for Older Men and Women i

Given:the reasoning above, an evolved psychological mechanism promoting
deference behavior toward men should only pertain to women in thbir
child-bearing years. In the EEA, there would have been no reproducti^ve
advantages for older, post-menopausal women to defer to adult men, there
would only have been possible disadvantages. If deference is a promise
of paternity certainty, then it would be unnecessary past menopause.! A
woman and her offspring could still depend on provisioning from her mate
if thejman were sure the children were his. Similarly, there would have
been'no mate-acquisition advantage for males to reject influence from
women who are beyond the reproductive years. Given this, there woild
have been selection against such behaviors when the women involved are
past menopause. Even if males prefer mates who defer, given that any
indiviidual male has considerable fitness investment in his joint children
with an older woman, he may decide to continue investing in their jo^int
offspring. It is of course in male reproductive interests to find a younger
mateiwhen his mate passes menopause. Some men clearly do find younger
mates, both now and also in the evolutionary past. There is considerable
ethnographic and historical evidence in support of the reproductive benefit
for m¡en of this behavior (Betzig 1986, 1993; Sanderson 2001 ). i
This means that we can expect that older women will be less likelyjto
deferiand have their influence rejected by men, and should enjoy a higher
status vis-à-vis males. This is supported by evidence from many cultures
 Gender Inequality in Interaction <> 1859

where post-menopausal women often enjoy a status equal to that of men;

they become in effect "honorary men." (van den Berghe 1973;94; Brown
1982; Fisher 1999) Even in the most gender restrictive societies they are
freed from menstrual taboos and purdah, often begin to inherit property
and acquire wealth, and in general have increased freedom, status, power
and influence in society. A recent experimental study of influence in small
groups showed that older women (50 and older) do not defer to older
men, and that older men do not display lack of deference to older women
(Hopcroft 2006). In this experiment, pairs of subjects (young men with
young women, older men with older women) were asked to make a
series of decisions about a gender-neutral, perceptual task with input
from their partners. In general, older individuals were more resistant to
input from their partners than younger individuals. However, while young
men rejected input from young women more, and young women rejected
input from young men less, there was no sex difference in rejection of
influence among the older individuals. Studies of aging and personality
note that men become less assertive with age, while women become
more assertive, and that in general men and women become more alike
as they age (see Rossi 1984). Surveys show that women's self esteem also
improves after menopause. A meta-analysis of survey studies of global
self esteem shows the sex difference in self esteem as favoring males
in all the younger age groups, but disappearing in the over-60 age group
(Klingetal. 1999).

An Evolved Predisposition for Deference and Existing Sociological Approaches

The hypothesis presented here suggests that males have a predisposition
not to defer to females of reproductive age, and females of reproductive
age have a predisposition to defer to men in mixed-sex interactions.
Sociologists have often described these behaviors as a result of societal
norms or culturally-based expectations - the norm for girls to be reticent
and deferential, and the norm for boys to be assertive and non-deferential
(Eagly and Wood 1999; Epstein 2007). However, these explanations are
not contradictory. There are norms for sex-typed behavior in every society,
and in our society (as in most others) they prescribe a supportive role for
girls and an instrumental role for boys. The hypothesis of the existence
of evolved predispositions suggested here can explain why those norms
develop in our society, and similar norms (with much variation) develop in
other societal contexts (Lopreato and Crippen 2002).
In like manner, these predispositions may promote the expectations
about individual competence proposed by Expectations States theory.
This theory states that individuals have general expectations of other
individuals based on ascriptive characteristics such as sex, and these
1860 . Social Forces 87(4)

general expectations in turn shape individual expectations about others'

competence. It is these expectations about competence that influence
whether the individual defers or not in an experimental interaction (Berger,
Cohen and Zelditch 1966; Fisek, Berger and Norman 1991; Ridgeway
1997). I suggest here that with regard to gender it is the predisposition
toward deference behavior that is causally prior, and presumptions ¡of
individual competence may or may not be an additional outcome. TÜie
general consensus among Expectation States Researchers is that tljie
causal order is the reverse; that the expectations come first, followed
by deference behaviors. It is often suggested that the socially-produced
status and economic hierarchy produces the general expectations thjat
influencebehavior(Ridgeway 1991; Webster and Hysom 1998; Ridgeway
et al. 1998; Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin 1999). The path to changing the
behavior, therefore, is to change the social and economic hierarchy ariid
thereby change the expectations. The claim here that the deference
behavior is causally prior is supported by the fact that growing gendjer
equity in the workplace and acceptance of norms favoring gender equali^ty
does not seem to have had the predicted effects on deference behavior ¡or
beliefs about competency. Rashotte and Webster (2005) found continued
higher performance expectations for men than women, even among the
most egalitarian respondents. One recent study of rejection of influence
behavior in mixed-sex dyads found no effect of gender (Foschi and
Lapoihte 2002), but other recent studies where participants are given
no additional information about individual skills or sex differences in skill
patterhs show continued deference patterns by females to males and the
lack of the reverse (Troyer 2001 ; Hopcroft 2002).
The hypothesis presented here does not contradict the behavioral predic-
tions of Expectations States theon/ or normative theories. The existence
of preclispositions influencing behavior in mixed-sex interactions does not
mean that changing contexts and available information about individuals vyill
not change this behavior. All evolutionan/ explanations assume that behavior
is context dependent. Nor does it assume that all individuals exhibit the
predisposition to the same degree. This hypothesis does serve to explain
why women, on average, are likely to defer to men in mixed-sex interactions,
and why women, on average, are likely to no longer defer to men after they
are past childbearing age. It also explains why men, on average, do not de-
fer to yvomen in mixed-sex interactions, but this behavior ceases when the
women involved are past childbearing age. Hence the hypothesis presented
here should be seen as complementan/, and not competing, with existing
sociological theory It does not explain why shorter people are more likeily
to defer to taller people, or any other findings of the Expectations States
research program, although it is possible that other evolved predispositions
could also explain some of these findings (Hopcroft 2006).
 Gender Inequality in Interaction »1861

What are the benefits of linking sociological theory to evolutionary theory?

First, it can explain why female deference to males, and the lack of male
deference to females, is found in all societies. Second, it can account for the
lack of deference behaviors between older men and women in experimental
settings (Hopcroft 2006). Third, it can explain why in all human societies the
status of women increases when they are past menopause (Brown 1982).
Fourth, it can account for the continued influence of gender among young
college adults in mixed-sex interactions when cultural norms for this group
in the United States have become increasingly equitable.
Last, it produces novel hypotheses that can be tested. One, that
deference behavior ends for women after the age of 50, has been tested
and supported (Hopcroft 2006). Further, if women's deference behavior
is a result of an innate predisposition that disappears at the end of the
childbearing years, then deference (or lack of it) by sex should end for
men and women at about this time, but deference on the basis of other
status characteristics, for example, height, education or race, should not.
Experiments can be designed to test if this is the case. The theory also
predicts that young women who defer to men should also be judged by
them as more attractive as potential long-term mates than young women
who do not defer, all else being equal. At the same time deference
behaviors should make no difference to males' evaluation of the women
as short-term mates. The theory also predicts that men who do not defer
to women will be found more attractive as potential long-term mates and
potential short-term mates by young women than those that do. However,
men who do not defer to women will no longer be found more attractive
as potential long-term or short-term mates by women who are past
childbearing years. All of these predictions can be readily tested using
standard experimental procedures followed by a survey of the attitudes
of the participants toward their (presumed) interaction partners. If a theory
can explain or unify existing findings, and produce hypotheses that are
supported by empirical data, the theory is useful. Furthermore, as Udry
(1995:1269) notes: "Once we accept the idea that humans are evolved
from other nonhuman ancestors, there is no theoretically consistent way of
avoiding the principle of the evolutionary foundations of human behavior."

Conclusion

Evolutionary theorizing can explain gender inequality across most human

societies. Evolutionary theory suggests that it is always in the reproductive
interests of males (and typically the woman's relatives too) to control the
sexual behavior of females in the childbearing years, so we can expect
evolved predispositions that serve this purpose. This can explain the
endless variety of methods that societies have employed to control female
1862 . Socio/forces 87(4)

behavior and sexuality. It can also explain many contemporary ideologies

and practices in our own and other societies (such as the sexual double
standard) that constrain the behavior of women. Prior work in evolutionary
psychology suggests that male sexual jealousy can be a mediating factor
between male reproductive interests and behaviors aimed at controlliipg
women, including violent behaviors.
This article adds to these evolutionary explanations of patriarchy and
male domination and derives a new hypothesis from the theory of relative
parental investment to explain why young females frequently defer to mpn
in social interactions while men do not defer to women. This hypothesis
is that deference behaviors in men and women are in part a result of an
evolved, sexually-selected predisposition. As this research demonstrates,
the existence of such a predisposition is consistent with a great deal lof
experimental evidence of male and female interactions in small groups,
ethnographic evidence, as well as surveys of sex differences in self esteem.
The hypothesis that such deference behavior is based on an evolved
predisposition, rather than entirely socially constructed, is supported
by evidence showing that the sex difference in influence in small-group
interactions and in self esteem disappears among older males and females
beyohd their reproductive years. It is also consistent with ethnographic
evidence from many cultures showing that the status of women in society
typically improves greatly when they are past their chiidbearing years, i
No one can return to the ancestral environment to find if suchj a
predisposition toward deference behaviors indeed provided adaptive
benefits for humans. Evolutionary arguments are useful if they can
consistently explain and unify a set of empirical findings, and if they can
produce further hypotheses that can be tested. Here I have shown hclw
the hypothesis presented here can explain and unify many findings fro!m
the Expectations States research literature in sociology and other research
findings regarding mixed-sex interactions. Further, the general hypothesis
produces a number of novel subsidiary hypotheses that can be tested and
I havei listed these here. !
As yvith all predispositions, there is no evolutionary reason for individuals
to be consciously aware of the cause of a predisposition to defer, and this
is also consistent with the available evidence. Because the deference be-
havior is often unintentional, it may be problematic in the contemporan/ en-
vironment where men and women often work together. Like other evolved
predispositions that can be problematic (e.g., male sexual jealousy) the fitjst
step to dealing with the problems it causes is awareness of the predispcisi-
tion. Also like other evolved predispositions, there will be differences fro|m
person to person and circumstance to circumstance. Sex differences |in
deference behavior in mixed-sex groups are an average phenomenon, and
will not apply to all individuals, or in all situations, all the time.
 Gender Inequality in Interaction o 1863

Altogether, these ideas from evolutionary theory - male interest

in controlling female sexuality, male sexual jealousy and possible
predispositions toward deference behavior - form a powerful theory of
gender inequality in society and in interaction. Like some feminist theory,
the theory presented here notes that control of women and their sexuality
is an abiding concern and underpins sexist cultures. Unlike this theory, it
can explain why that preference exists and is so common across human
societies. Like some feminist theory, it points out how many of our
behaviors and motivations are not necessarily conscious, but once again
can also explain why they are not conscious. As some feminists contend, it
may be that the best solution to the problems created by evolved biases is
consciousness raising, that is, raising awareness of unconscious behaviors
and motivations (Hrdy 1997).

References

Anderlik, Mary R., and Mark A. Rothstein. 2002. "DNA-Based Identity Testing and
the Future of the Family: A Research Agenda." American Journal of Law &
Medicine 28(2002):215-32.

Apostolou, Menelaos. 2007. "Sexual selection under parental choice: the role of
parents in the evolution of human mating." Evolution and Human Behavior
28(6):403-09.

Berger, Joseph, Bernard R Cohen and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1966. "Status
Characteristics and Expectation States." R 29. Sociological Theories in
Progress, Volume 1. J. Berger, M. Zelditch, Jr. and B. Anderson, editors.
Houghton Mifflin.

Betzig, Laura L. 1986. Despotism and Differential Reproduction: a Dan/vinian View

of History. Aldine.

1993. "Sex, succession and stratification in the first six civilizations: How
powerful men reproduced, passed power on to their sons, and used power
to defend their wealth, women and children." Rp. 37-74. Social Stratification
andSocioeconomic Inequality, Volume I. L. Ellis, editor. Rraeger.

Betzig, Laura. Editor 1997. Human Nature: A CriticaiReader. Oxford University Rress.

Bowlby John. ]969. Attachment and Loss. Volume I: Attachment Basic.

Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human Universals. McGraw Hill.

Brown, Judith K. 1982. "Cross-cultural Rerspectives on Middle-aged Women."

Current Anthropology 23(2): 143-56.

Brown, Lyn Mikel, and Carol Gilligan. 1992. Meeting at the Crossroads: Women's
Psychology and Giris' Development Harvard University Press.
1864 . Socio/Forces 87(4)

Buss, David M. 1989. "Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary

Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures." Behavioraiand Brain Sciences 12(1):1-49.

. 1996. "Sexual Conflict: Evolutionary Insights into Feminism and the

'Battle of the Sexes.' " Pp. 296-318. Sex, Power, Conflict. David M. Buss and
Neil M. Malamuth, editors. Oxford University Press. !

_. 1999. Evolutionary Psychology. Allyn and Bacon.

Buss, David M., Randy J. Larsen, Drew Westen and Jennifer Semmelroth.
1992. "Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology."
PsychologicaiScience 3(4):251-55.

Buss, David M., and D.P Schmitt. 1993. "Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary
Perspective on Human Mating." Psycfiologicai Review 100(2):204-32.

Butler, Judith. 1999. Gender Troubie: Peminism and the Subversion of identi^.
Routledge.

Buunk, Bram P, Alois Angleitner, Victor Oubaid and David M. Buss. 1996. "Sex
Differences in Jealousy in Evolutionary and Cultural Perspective: Tests from the
Netherlands, Germany and the United States." PsychoiogicalScience 7(6):359-63.

Buunk, Bram P, Pieternel Dijkstra, Douglas T Kenrick and Astrid Wamtjes. 2001.
"Age Preferences for Mates as Related to Gender, Own Age, and Involvement
Level." Evoiution and Human Beiiavior 22(4):241-50. \

Campbell, Anne. 1995. "A few good men: Evolutionary psychology and female
adolescent aggression." Ethology and Sociobiology 16(2):99-123. '

2002. A Mind of Her Own. The Evolutionary Psychology of Women.

Oxford University Press. -
CarIi, Linda L. 1989. "Gender Differences in Interaction Style and Influence."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(4) : 565-76.

,_. 1990. "Gender, Language, and Inüuence." Journal of Personaiity ahd

Sociai Psychoiogy 59(5):941 -51.
_. 1999. "Gender, Interpersonal Power, and Social Influence." Joiyma/o/'
Soc/a//ssives 55(11:81-99.

CarIi, Linda L., and Alice H. Eagly. 1999. "Gender Effects on Social Influence and
Emergent Leadership." Pp. 203-22. Handbook of Gender and Work. GaryJN.
Powell, editor. Sage.

Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. 1984. Sex and Advantage : A Comparative, Macro-

structural Theory of Sex Stratification. Rowman & Allanheld.
 Gender Inequality in Interaction • 1865

Collins, Randall, Janet Saltzman Chafetz, Rae Lesser Blumberg, Scott Coltrane
and Jonathan H. Turner. 1993. "Toward an Integrated Theory of Gender
Stratification." Socioiogicai Perspectives 36(3): 185-216.

Cotter, David A., Joan M. Hermsen, Seth Ovadia and Reeve Vanneman. 2001.
"The Glass Ceiling Effect." Sociai Forces 80(2):655-82.

Cronin, Helena. 1991. Tiie Ant and ttie Peacock: Aitruism and Sexuai Seiection
from Darwin to Today. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Daly, Martin, and Margo I. Wilson. 1998. "The Evolutionary Social Psychology of
Family Violence." Pp. 431-56. Handbook of Evoiutionary Psyciioiogy. Charles
Crawford and Dennis L. Krebs, editors. Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

_. 2000. "The Evolutionary Psychology of Marriage and Divorce." Pp. 91-110.

Tiie Ties tiiatBind. Linda J. Waite, editor. Aldine de Gruyter.

Daly, Martin, Margo I. Wilson and Suzanne J. Weghorst. 1982. "Male Sexual
Jealousy." Ethoiogyand Sociobioiogy 3(1 ): 11-27.

de Waal, Frans. 1996. Good Natured: Tiie Origins ofRigiitand Wrong in i-iumans
and Otfier Animais. Harvard University Press.

Dickemann, Mildred. 1979. "Female Infanticide, Reproductive Strategies, and

Social Stratification: A Preliminary Model." Pp. 321-67. Evoiutionary Bioiogy
and Human Sociai Beiiavior. Napoleon A. Chagnon and William Irons, editors.
Duxbury Press.

. 1981. "Paternal Confidence and Down/Competition: A Biocultural Analysis

of Purdah." Pp. 417-38. Naturai Seiection and Sociai Beiiavior. Richard D.
Alexander and Donald W. Tinkle, editors. Chiron Press.

Driskell, James E., Beckett Olmstead and Eduardo Salas. 1993. "Task Cues,
Dominance Cues and Influence in Task Groups." Journai ofAppiied Psyciioiogy
78(1):51-60.

Eagly, Alice H., and Wendy Wood. 1999. "The Origins of Sex Differences in Human
Behavior: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles."/lme/-/ca/7 Psychoiogisi
54(6):408-23.

Easton, Judith A., Lucas D. Schipper and Todd K. Shackelford. 2007. "Morbid
jealousy from an evolutionary psychological perspective." Evoiution and
Human Beiiavior 28(6):399-402.

Etcoff, Nancy. 1999. Survivai of tiie Prettiest. Doubleday.

Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. 2007. "Great Divides: The Cultural, Cognitive and Social
Bases of the Global Subordination of Women." Presidential Address, Annual
Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada, Aug.
13-18. American Socioiogicai Review 72( 1 ): 1 -22.
1866 . Socia/forces 87(4)

Ferrée, Myra Marx, and Elaine J. Hall. 2000. "Gender Stratification and Paradigm
Change."American Sociological Review 65(3):475-81.

Feynman, Richard P 1985. Surely You're Joking, Mr FeynmanI Adventures of a

Curious Character Bantam Books.

Fisek, M. Hamit, Joseph Berger and Robert Z. Norman. 1991. "Participation

in Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Groups: A Theoretical Integration."
Arherican Journal of Sociology 97( 1 ) : 114-42. i

Fisher, Helen. 1999. The First Sex. Random House.

Foddy, Margaret, and Michael Smithson. 1999. "Can Gender Inequalities be

Eliminated?" Social Psychoiogy Quarterly 62(4):307-24.
I

Foschi, Martha, Sandra Enns and Vanessa Lapointe. 2001. "Processing

Performance Evaluations in Homogeneous Task Groups: Feedback and
Gender Effects." Advances in Group Processes 18:185-216. '.
j
Foschi, Martha, and Vanessa Lapointe. 2002. "On Conditional Hypotheses arid
Gender as a Status Characteristic." Social Psychology Quarterly 65(2): 146-62.
Freese, Lee, and Bernard P Cohen, 1973. "Decision-Making and Social Influence:
A Model and an Experimental Test." Soc/'omei/y 36(2): 177-93. I

Gangestad, Steven W., and Jeffry A. Simpson. 1990. "Toward an Evolutionary

History of Female Sociosexual Variation." Journal of Personality 58(1 ):69-96.

Ginther, Donna K., and Kathy J. Hayes. 1999. "Gender Differences in Salary aiid
Promotion in the Humanities." The American Economic Review 89(2):397-402.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1998. "The Social Construction and Institutionalizationjof

Gender and Race: An Integrative Framework." Pp. 3-43. Revisioning Gendpr.
Myra M. Ferrée, Judith Lorber and Beth Hess, editors. Sage. ;

Glick, Peter, and Susan T Fiske. 2001. "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and
Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality."
Ahierican Psychologist 56(2): 109-18. !

Gowaty, Patricia Adair. 1992. "Evolutionary Biology and Feminism." Human Nature
3(3):217-49. i

_. Editor. 1997. Feminism and Evolutionary Biology: Boundaries,

Intersections, and Frontiers. Chapman & Hall.

Griffith, W.I., Jane Sell and M.J. Parker. 1993. "Self-interested Versus Third-Party
Allocations of Rewards." Social Psychology Quarterly 56(2): 148-55.
 Gender Inequality in Interaction • 1867

Hennbroff, Larry A., Michael W. Martin and Jane Sell. 1981. "Total Performance
Inconsistency and Status Generalization: An Expectation States Formulation."
Socioiogicai Quarteriy 22(3):421-30.

Hopcroft, Rosemary L. 1996. "AuthorityAttainment of Women: Competitive Sector

Effects." Tiie American Journai of Economics and Socioiogy 55(2): 163-84.

. 2002. "Is Gender Still a Status Characteristic?" Current Researcii in Sociai

Ps/c/70/OÊf/7(20):339-46.

. 2006. "Status Characteristics Among Older Individuals: The Diminished

Significance of Gender." Socioiogicai Quarteriy 47(2):361-74.

Hrdy Sarah Blaffer. 1981. Ttie Woman TiiatNeverEvoived. Harvard University Press.

. 1997. "Raising Darwin's Consciousness: Female Sexuality and the

Prehominoid Origins of Patriarchy." i-iuman Nature 8(1):1-49.

Huber, Joan. 2007. Qn ttie Qrigins of Gender inequaiity. Paradigm.

. 2008. "Reproductive Biology Technology, and Gender Inequality: An

Autobiographical Essay" Annuai Review ofSocioiogy 34:1-13.

Jones, Doug M. 1995. "Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial

Neoteny" CurrentAnttiropoiogy 36(5):723-48.

Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2001. "De Gustibus Est Disputandum." Sociai Forces

79(3):1131-63.

Kenrick, Douglas T, and Richard C. Keefe. 1992. "Age Preferences in Mates

Reflect Sex Differences in Human Reproductive Strategies." Beiiaviorai and
Brain Sciences 15(1):75-133.

Kenrick, Douglas T, Edward K. Sadalla, Gary Groth and Melanie R. Trost. 1990.
"Evolution, Traits and the Stages of Human Courtship: Qualifying the Parental
Investment Model." Journai of Personaiity 58(1 ):97-116.

Kling, Kristen C, Janet Shibley Hyde, Carolin J. Showers and Brenda N.

Buswell.1999. "Gender Differences in Self Esteem: A Meta-Analysis."
Psyciioiogicai Buiietin 125(4):470-500.

Kollock, Peter, Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz. 1985. "Sex and Power in
Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Du\\es." American Socioiogicai
/?eweM/50(1):34-46.

Laband, David N., and Bernard F Lentz. 1993. "Is There Sex Discrimination in the
Legal Profession? Further Evidence on Tangible and Intangible Margins." Tiie
Journai of i-iuman Resources 28(2):230-59.
1868 . Social Forces 87(4)

Langlois, Judith H., Lisa Kalakanis, Adam J. Rubenstein, Andrea Larson, Monica
Hallam and Monica Smoot. 2000. "Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A Meta-
Analytic and Theoretical Review." Psychological Bulletin 126(3):390-423.

Lenski, Gerhard Emmanuel. 1984. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social

Stratification. University of North Carolina Rress.

Lerner, Gerda. 1986. Women and History. Oxford University Rress.

Long, J. Scott. 1993. "Rank Advancement in Academic Careers: Sex Differences

and the Effects of Rroductivity"/Imencan Sociologicai Review 58(5):703-;22.

Lopreato, Joseph, and Timothy Crippen. 2002. Crisis in Sociology: The Need for
Darwin. Transaction. '

Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Rress.

MacKinnon, Catharine A.1982. "Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State."

5'/5r/is7(3):515-44. '

Martin, Michael W, and Jane Sell. 1985. "The Effect of Equating Status Characteristics
on the Generalization Rrocess." Social Psychology Quarterly 48(2): 178-82. '

Maryanski, Alexandra, and Jonathan H. Turner 1992. The Social Cage: Human
Nature and the Evolution of Society. Stanford University Rress. ¡

Mueller, Ulrich, and Allan Mazur 1997. "Facial Dominance in Homo Sapiens'as
Honest Signaling of Male Quality" Behavioral Ecology 8(5):569-79. ¡

Rinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Viking.

Rratto, Felicia. 1996. "Sexual Rolitics: The Gender Gap in the Bedroom, the
Cupboard, and the Cabinet." Rp. 179-230. Sex Power and Conflict. David ¡M.
Buss and Neil M. Malamuth, editors. Oxford University Rress. ;

Rropp, Kathleen M. 1995. "An Experimental Examination of Biological Sex as a

Status Cue in Decision-making Groups and Its Influence on Information Usk "
Small Group Research 26(4):451 -74. i

Rugh, M.D., and Ralph Wahrman. 1983. "Neutralizing Sexism in Mixed-Sex

Groups: Do Women Have to Be Better than Men?" American Journal\of
Sop/o/og/88(4):746-62. I

Rashotte, Lisa Slattery and Murray Webster, Jr 2005. "Gender Status Beliefjs."
Social Science Research 34(3):618-33. i

Reskin, Barbara F, and Catherine E. Ross. 1992. 'Jobs, Authority, and Earnings
among Managers: The Continuing Significance of Sex." Work and Occupations
19(4): 342-65.
 Gender Inequality in Interaction o 1869

Rhodes, Gill, L.W. Simmons and M. Peters. 2005. "Attractiveness and sexual
behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success?" Evolution and
Human Behavior 26(2): 186-201.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1991. "The Social Construction of Status Value: Gender and
Other Nominal Characteristics." Sociai Eorces 70(2):367-86.

. 1997. "Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality."

Socioiogicai Review 62(2):218-35.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Joseph Berger. 1986. "Expectations, Legitimation,

and Dominance Behavior in Task Groups." American Socioiogical Review
51(5):603-17.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., Kathy J. Kuipers, Elizabeth Heger Boyle and Dawn T
Robinson.1998. "How Do Status Beliefs Develop? The Role of Resources
and Interactional Experience."/4/77er/caA7 Socioiogicai Review 63(3):331-50.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1999. "The Gender System and
Interaction."/4A7/7tya//?eweM/o/^Soc/o/o5iy 25:191-216.

Ridley, Matt. 1993. The Red Oueen. Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.
Penguin Books.

Risman, Barbara J. 2004. "Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with

Activism." Gender and Society 18(4):429-50.

. 2001. "Calling the Bluff of Value-free Science." American Socioiogicai

66(4):605-11.

Rossi, Alice S. 1984. "Gender and Parenthood."/4mer/ca;7 Socioiogicai Review

Sanderson, Stephen K. 2001. The Evoiution of Human Sociaiity. Rowman and

Littlefield.

Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Charles Brody. 1989. "Interruptions in Group Discussions:

The Effects of Gender and Group Composition." American Socioiogicai
/?ei//eiA/54(3):424-35.

Smith-Lovin, Lynn, John V. Skvoretz and Charlotte G. Hudson. 1986. "Status and
Participation in Six-Person Groups: A Test of Skvoretz's Comparative Status
Model." Sociai Porces 64(4):992-1005.

Smuts, Barbara. 1995. "The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy"/-/¿vman Nature 6(1 ): 1-32.

. 1996. "Male Aggression Against Women: An Evolutionary Perspective."

Pp. 231-68. Sex Power and Confiict. David M. Buss and Neil M. Malamuth,
editors. Oxford University Press.
1870 . Soda/Forces 87(4)

Sommers, Christina Hoff. 1994. \Niio Stoie Feminism?: How Women Have
Betrayed Women. Simon & Schuster.

Teismann, Mark W., and Donald L. Mosher. 1978. "Jealous conflict in dating
couples." Psyctioiogicai Reports 42(3, Part 2): 1211-16. \

Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. 1990. "The Past Explains the Present: Emotional
Adaptations and the Structure of Ancestral Environments." Etiioiogy and
Sociobioiogy 11(4-5): 375-424. i

_. 1992. "The Psychological Foundations of Culture." Pp. 19-136. ftie

Adapted Mind: Evoiutionary Psyciioiogy and tiie Generation ofCuiture. Jerome
H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, editors. Oxford University Pre¡ss.

Trivers, Robert L. 1972. "Parental Investment and Sexual Selection." Pp. 136-
79. Sexuai Seiection and tiie Descent of Man 1871-1971. Bernard Campbell,
editor Aldine.

Troyeri Lisa, and C. Wesley Younts. 1997. "Whose Expectations Matter? Ttie
Relative Power of First- and Second- Order Expectations in Determining Soc|ial
Influence." American Journai of Socioiogy 103(3):692-732. i

Troyer, Lisa. 2001. "Effects of Protocol Differences on the Study of Status

and Social Influence." Available at: http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/
crisp.6.13.htm. i

Udry, J. Richard. 1995. "Sociology and Biology: What Biology do Sociologists

Need to Know?" Sociai Forces 73(4): 1267-78. I

. 2000. "Biological Limits of Gender Cor^sXruc\\or\." American Socioiogicai

Review 65(3):443-57.

van den Berghe, Pierre. L. 1973. Age and Sex in Human Societies: A Biosociai
Perspective. Wadsworth. !

. 1979. Human Famiiy Systems. Waveland Press.

van den Berghe, Pierre L., and Peter Frost. 1986. "Skin Color Preference, Sexual
Dimorphism and Sexual Selection: A Case of Gene Culture Co-evolutioiji."
Ethnic and Raciai Studies 9(1 ):87-113. !

Wagner, David G., and Joseph Berger. 1997. "Gender and Interpersonal Task
Behaviors: Status Expectation Accounts." Soc/o/ogr/ca/Pe/specf/i/es 40(1): 1-32.

Walker; Henry A., Barbara C. Hardi, Anne McMahon and Mary L. Fennell. 1996. '
"Gender, Interaction and Leadership." Soc/s/Ps)/c/7o/o5r/Q¿ya/íe/-//59(3):255-72.

Webster Jr., Murray, and Stuart J. Hysom, 1998. "Creating Status Characteristics."
American Socioiogicai Review 63(3):351-78.
 Gender Inequality in Interaction «1871

Weisfeld, Carol Cronin, Glenn E. Weisfeld and John W. Callaghan. 1982. "Female
Inhibition in Mixed-Sex Competition among Young Adolescents." Ethology
and Sociobiology 3(1 ):29-42.

Wilson, Edward 0. 1978. Qn Human Nature. Harvard University Press.

Wilson, Margo, and Martin Daly. 1992. "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a
Chattel." Pp. 289-322. The Adapted Mind. Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides
and John Tooby, editors. Oxford University Press.

Wilson, Margo, H. Holly Johnson and Martin Daly 1995. "Lethal and nonlethal
violence against wives." Canadian Journal of Criminology 37(3):331-61.

Wood, Wendy, and Stephen J. Karten. 1986. "Sex Differences in Interaction

Style as a Product of Perceived Sex Differences in Competence." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 50( 2 ) : 341 -47.