Document Type


Publication Date



OBJECTIVE: In this paper we evaluate the evidence for sex differences in fetal programming within the context of the proposed viability-vulnerability tradeoff.

METHODS: We briefly review the literature on the factors contributing to primary and secondary sex ratios. Sex differences in fetal programming are assessed by summarizing previously published sex difference findings from our group (6 studies) and also new analyses of previously published findings in which sex differences were not reported (6 studies).

RESULTS: The review and reanalysis of studies from our group are consistent with the overwhelming evidence of increasing risk for viability among males exposed to environmental adversity early in life. New evidence reported here support the argument that females, despite their adaptive agility, also are influenced by exposure to early adversity. Two primary conclusions are (i) female fetal exposure to psychobiological stress selectively influences fear/anxiety, and (ii) the effects of female fetal exposure to stress persist into preadolescence. These persisting effects are reflected in increased levels of anxiety, impaired executive function and neurological markers associated with these behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS: A tacit assumption is that females, with their adaptive flexibility early in gestation, escape the consequences of early life exposure to adversity. We argue that the consequences of male exposure to early adversity threaten their viability, effectively culling the weak and the frail and creating a surviving cohort of the fittest. Females adjust to early adversity with a variety of strategies, but their escape from the risk of early mortality and morbidity has a price of increased vulnerability expressed later in development.


NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Psychosomatic Research, volume 75, 2013. DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.07.009

The Creative Commons license below applies only to this version of the article.



Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.