Do men and women differ in their behaviour and cognition? If so, what role do biological factors (such as genes and hormones) and socio-cultural factors play? Can evolutionary theory be usefully applied to the study of human behaviour? If so, has culture influenced how humans have evolved?

These types of questions are being tackled by Prof. Gillian Brown and her research group in the School of Psychology & Neuroscience at the University of St Andrews, UK.

Out later this year! Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour (3rd edition) – Gillian Brown and Kevin Lala (forthcoming), OUP.

‘Evolutionary theory is one of the most wide-ranging and inspiring scientific ideas, and it offers a battery of methods that can be used to interpret human behaviour. However, researchers disagree about the best ways to use evolution to explore humanity, and a number of schools of thought have emerged.

Sense and Nonsense (3rd edition) provides an introduction to the ideas, methods and findings of five such schools, namely sociobiology, human behavioural ecology, evolutionary psychology, cultural evolution and gene–culture coevolution. In this revised and updated edition of their successful monograph, Brown and Lala provide a balanced and rigorous analysis that scrutinises both the evolutionary arguments and the allegations of the critics, carefully guiding the reader through the mire of confusing terminology, claim, and counter-claim, and polemical statements.’


My research group aims to understand sex/gender differences, and similarities, in behaviour in human beings and other animals. This research examines how evolutionary theory can shed light on gender differences in human behaviour, how social and cultural factors influence behaviour, and how exposure to gonadal hormones during early life influences the developmental trajectory of male and female animals. The methodologies have include human experimental, behavioural neuroendocrinology and meta-analytic techniques.

Current research projects

Evolutionary perspectives on gender differences in human behaviour

In Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour, I have critically evaluated how evolutionary theory has been applied to human behaviour from Darwin to the present day [1]. We have argued that evolutionary accounts of gender differences in human behaviour are often been based on over-simplified or out-dated views of how humans have evolved [2], and we have proposed that a niche construction perspective can provide a richer and fuller account of the diversity of human behaviour [3,4].

[1] Brown G. & Lala, K. 2024. Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour, 3rd Ed. OUP. [2] Brown G, Laland K & Borgerhoff Mulder M. 2009. Trends Ecol Evol 24297-304. [3] Laland K & Brown G. 2006. Evol Anthropol 15, 95-104. [4] Brown G, Dickins T, Sear R & Laland K. 2011. Phil Trans R Soc B 366, 313-24.

Gender differences in human behaviour, cognition and personality

When men and women differ in their average performance on cognitive tasks, the difference is often attributed to ‘ability’. However, factors such as confidence and willingness to take risks can influence learning strategies in such tasks. We have shown that the decision to learn socially, rather than asocially, is influenced both by confidence [1] and by the riskiness of the social and asocial options [2]. Adolescent girls interpret ambiguous scenarios more negatively than do same-aged boys [3], and men score higher on average than women on their willingness to experience in novel, intense sensations [3]. Such differences could impact upon gender differences in cognitive tasks.

[1] Cross C, Brown G, Morgan T & Laland K. 2017. Brit J Psychol 108, 655-667. [2] Brand C, Brown G & Cross C. 2018. PeerJ 6, e4190. [3] Brown G, Gluck R & Dritschel B. 2014. Brit J Dev Psychol 32, 116-22. [4] Cross C, Cyrenne D & Brown. 2013. Sci Rep 3, 2486.


Past research projects

Gonadal hormones and sex differences in behavioural development

During adolescence, circulating levels of gonadal hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen, rise dramatically, and these hormones can have long-term effects on brain development [1]. Our studies of adolescent rats (Rattus norvegicus) have shown that sex differences in behaviour emerge during this stage of life [2] and that manipulating gonadal hormone levels during adolescence impacts upon the development of behaviour, such as responses to novel objects [3] and social partners [4].

[1] Brown G & Spencer K. 2013. Neurosci 249, 115-28. [2] Lynn D & Brown G. 2009. Dev Psychobiol 51, 513-20. [3] Cyrenne D & Brown G. 2011. Horm Behav 60, 625-31. [4] Brown G, Kulbarsh K, Spencer K & Duval C. 2015. Horm Behav 73, 135-41.

Food sharing and social learning in nonhuman primates

In many species of nonhuman primates, young animals will take food items that have been foraged by their parents or other group members [1]. These ‘food transfers’ provide youngsters with an important source of nutrition but can also help them to learn what to eat, where to forage and how to process food [2,3]. Our observational studies of common marmosets showed that the parents responded to patterns of begging behaviour from their offspring [4].

[1] Rapaport L & Brown G. 2008. Evol Anthropol 17: 189-201. [2] Brown G, Almond R & van Bergen Y. 2004. Adv Stud Behav 34, 265-95. [3] Hoppitt W, Brown G, et al. 2008. Trends Ecol Evol 23, 486-93. [4] Brown G, Almond R & Bates, N. 2005. Am J Primatol 65, 301-12.

Sex-biased parental investment and birth sex ratios in nonhuman primates

Selection is predicted to favour mothers that bias their investment towards sons or daughters when the expected returns are greater for one sex than the other [1]. However, our meta-analyses providing no evidence that birth sex ratios were biased according to material rank in non-human primates [2] or specifically in baboons [3]. Our comparative analyses across primate species did reveal evidence that birth sex ratios varied according to which sex disperses from the natal area [4].

[1] Brown G. 2001. Anim Behav 61: 683-694. [2] Silk & Brown G. 2002. PNAS 99: 11252-11255. [3] Silk J, Willoughby E. & Brown, G. 2005. Proc R Soc B 272: 859-864. [4] Silk J. & Brown, G. 2008. Proc R Soc B 275: 1761-1765..