The rift between evolutionary psychology and the biosocial model of gender relations impedes a fuller understanding of gender roles and gender inequality. In a novel evolutionary account that complements both existing theories, we highlight life history strategies as intermediate mechanism linking distal environmental forces to variations in gender relations. Specifically, traditional versus modernized gender roles are seen as shaped by present-oriented versus future-oriented reproductive strategies, which are sensitive to uncontrollable morbidity-mortality risks. Gender inequality stems from a combination of present-oriented reproductive strategies adapted to high-risk environments and dominance hierarchies resulting from societal competition (i.e., the probability of obtaining resources desired by others through personal efforts). By contrast, gender egalitarian values develop as people increasingly enact future-oriented reproductive strategies in a competitive but orderly and controllable environment, which is conducive to prestige hierarchies. The current account provides novel interpretations of phenomena ranging from sex differences in mate preference, sociosexuality, and sexism to cross-cultural variability in marital systems and cultural practices. All of these serve to support the view that gender relations are evolved, changeable, and influenced by the interaction between ecological and social environments in ways predicted by the life history mechanism.

Drawing from the dual process model of morality and life history theory, the present research examined the role of cognitive and emotional processes as bridges between basic environmental challenges (i.e., unpredictability and competition) and other-centered moral orientation (i.e., prioritizing the welfare of others). In two survey studies, cognitive and emotional processes represented by future-oriented planning and emotional attachment, respectively (Study 1, N = 405), or by perspective taking and empathic concern, respectively (Study 2, N = 424), positively predicted other-centeredness in prosocial moral reasoning (Study 1) and moral judgment dilemmas based on rationality or intuition (Study 2). Cognitive processes were more closely related to rational aspects of other-centeredness, whereas the emotional processes were more closely related to the intuitive aspects of other-centeredness (Study 2). Finally, the cognitive and emotional processes also mediated negative effects of unpredictability (i.e., negative life events and childhood financial insecurity), as well as positive effects of individual-level, contest competition (i.e., educational and occupational competition) on other-centeredness. Overall, these findings support the view that cognitive and emotional processes do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, they might work in concert to promote other-centeredness in various circumstances and might be attributed to humans' developmental flexibility in the face of environmental challenges.

Based on nationally representative online samples from 23 countries, an international survey (Blackbox, 2020) reported that, despite the presence of some discrepancies, people in collectivistic societies were generally more supportive of their countries' preventive measures to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus as evidenced by ratings which were typically (and in some cases, well) above the global average (Global M = 45; e.g., China = 85; Vietnam = 77; India = 59). By contrast, respondents from individualistic societies generally rated their nations' restrictive measures much more unfavorably (e.g., United States = 45; Australia = 43; United Kingdom = 37) (Blackbox, 2020).

Drawing from social domain theory, this study examined people’s evaluation of society-level disease-prevention regulations (e.g., school closure) and personal precautions (e.g., wearing a facemask) during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, as assessed in Spring, 2020. Participants from three countries (United States [US], China, and Japan; N = 528) rated their acceptance of a range of society-level and individual-level preventive measures and then indicated their main reasons for these ratings, which were categorized as moral, societal, personal, and prudential based on social domain theory. Consistent with this theoretical framework, we found both similarities and differences across the three societies. Specifically, we found that, across the three societies, moral considerations predicted higher acceptance of society-level preventive measures, whereas personal considerations predicted lower acceptance of both society-level and individual-level preventive measures. However, a stronger link between societal considerations and higher acceptance of society-level preventive measures was found for Chinese participants than for US and Japanese participants.

No abstract