On accusations of exceptional male bias in evolutionary psychology: Placing sex differences in citation counts in proper evidentiary contexts.

Abstract

The scientific field of evolutionary psychology has been characterized by some as particularly male-biased. For example, Meredith (2013) recently suggested a conspicuous undercitation of women exists in evolutionary psychology, and this exceptional male bias “has led to evolutionary psychology being better described as men’s psychology as it is men’s voices that are heard through their publication dominance” (p. 358). Evidence of biases in scholarly citation rates—whether in the form of sex, ethnicity, or national origin bias—have been recognized as problematic issues across many scholarly disciplines. Several sources of new evidence are used to more fully evaluate these claims regarding evolutionary psychology. It is concluded that compared with science generally, and high profile publishing in psychology specifically, evolutionary psychology is relatively unbiased in its citations of men and women. Many more women are needed in the field of evolutionary psychology to meet its full promise. As a field, evolutionary psychology (and psychology more generally) needs to go further and investigate how unconscious biases affect how men and women remember or seek out citations. Fortunately, an evolutionary understanding of psychological sex differences is likely to provide a compelling framework for studying these very issues.