256 Emotion Review Vol. 6 No. 3 progesterone levels are raised. Hormones & Behavior, 51, 202–206. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.10.002 Derntl, B., Hack, R. L., Kryspin-Exner, I., & Habel, U. (2013). Associa- tion of menstrual cycle phase with the core components of empathy. Hormones & Behavior, 63, 97–104. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.10.009 Derntl, B., Kryspin-Exner, I., Fernbach, E. M., Moser, E., & Habel, U. (2008). Emotion recognition accuracy in healthy young females is associated with cycle phase. Hormones & Behavior, 53, 90–95. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.09.006 Fleischman, D. S., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2011). Progesterone’s effects on measures of disease avoidance: Support for the compensatory prophy- laxis hypothesis. Hormones & Behavior, 59, 271–275. doi:10.1016/j. yhbeh.2010.11.014 Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Hormo- nal correlates of women’s mid-cycle preference for the scent of sym- metry. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 223–232. doi:10.1016/j. evolhumbehav.2007.12.007 Gilbert, S. F. (2000). Developmental biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (in press). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L. G., Cornwell, R. E., Feinberg, D. R., & … Moore, F. R. (2005). Menstrual cycle, preg- nancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 347–354. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2962 Puts, D. A. (2006). Cyclic variation in women’s preferences for masculine traits. Human Nature, 17, 114–127. doi:10.1007/s12110–006–1023-x Roney, J. R., Simmons, Z. L., & Gray, P. B. (2011). Changes in estradiol predict within-women shifts in attraction to facial cues of men’s tes- tosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 742–749. doi:10.1016/ j.psyneuen.2010.10.010. Swaddle, J. P., & Reierson, G. W. (2002). Testosterone increases per- ceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males. Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 2285–2289. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2165 Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1559–1573. doi:10.1002/sim.1187 Wood, W., Kressel, L., Joshi, P. D., & Louie, B. (2014). Meta-analysis of menstrual cycle effects on women’s mate preferences. Emotion Review, 6, 229–249. Comment: The Social Neuroendocrinology Example: Incorporating Culture Resolves Biobehavioral Evolutionary Paradoxes Sari M. van Anders Department of Psychology and Department of Women’s Studies, Programs in Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences, and Science, Technology, & Society, University of Michigan, USA Corresponding author: Benedict Christopher Jones, Institute of Neuroscience & Psychology, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, Scotland, UK. Email: ben.jones@glasgow.ac.uk Abstract The target meta-analysis (Wood, Kressel, Joshi, & Louie, 2014) raises a number of red flags for research on menstrual shifts in women’s psychology. In this commentary, I particularly address one: the near- absent attention to sociocultural forces in this body of work. I use social neuroendocrinology as one example of a research paradigm that integrates both evolution and socialization into studies of human behavior. I argue that incorporating attention to social constructions actually provides clearer answers to evolutionary questions and also fills the biobehavioral comparative mandate by seriously attending to human specificities alongside cross-species generalities. I close by noting that human bodies simultaneously reflect evolved and sociocultural forces, an understanding that undergirds contemporary biobehavioral research. Keywords culture, gender, hormones, sex, sexuality, testosterone Wood et al. (2014) present a careful and thorough meta-analysis of research on menstrual shifts in women’s mating preferences. This is useful and timely given the excitement this field has gen- erated. Seeing all the details together leads to some head- scratching observations, though. How can researchers use at least nine different fertility windows? How can these windows differ by fully 13 days? Why don’t the same researchers use the same windows across studies? And, how can such broad win- dows be justified in the face of empirical precedent for more narrow constraints? The critique from Wood et al. (2014) that I particularly want to address here is that culture tends to be overlooked in this body of work, resulting in only partial understandings of human evolution. There are biosocial alternatives to evolutionary psy- chology, detailed in the article (eg., Eagly & Wood, 2013). I want to offer another: social neuroendocrinology is a way to study evolved neurobiological substrates for social behavior while attending to sociocultural factors (van Anders & Watson, 2006). It asks hormonal questions that have both evolution and socialization in their answers. It is comparative as behavioral biology generally is: social neuroendocrinology can be used to study evolved human behavior with interchanging lenses of human specificities and cross-species generalities.