Biological thinking in evolutionary psychology: Rockbottom or quicksand?

Jong, Huib Looren de; Steen, Wim J. van der

doi:10.1080/09515089808573255

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the growing set of findings attesting to the robustness of sex differences in romantic jealousy, more generally, evolutionary psychology has been widely criticised in the past few years for adopting an ''adaptationist'' account of human psychological functions (Bussey & Bandura, 1999;Caporael, 2001;de Jong & van der Steen, 1998;Sterelny, 1995). This is a valid criticism in cases where psychological functions are ''explained'' by speculative accounts of how they might be adaptations to ancestral environments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy

Ward

Voracek

2004

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sex differences in romantic jealousy have been widely reported in the recent psychological literature. According to this literature, men are more likely than women to report being more distressed at sexual than emotional infidelity. There are two explanations for this difference: an evolutionary psychological and a social cognitive explanation. According to the evolutionary psychological account, men and women exhibit differences in jealousy because they faced different reproductive challenges during human evolution. According to the social cognitive account, men and women exhibit these differences because they have been socialised to believe that attachment and sex are weighted differently by each gender. In this study, 268 participants completed a questionnaire designed to compare predictions based on these two theories. The results are generally consistent with the evolutionary account. Men are more distressed by sexual infidelity than by emotional infidelity, and this is not accounted for by beliefs about jealousy that they hold about men, women or themselves.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy

Ward

Voracek

2004

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note that this article is not primarily intended as a direct or formal critique of evolutionary psychology, as there are several recent sources for such an approach (e.g., Buller & Hardcastle, 2000;Caporael, 2001;Davies, 1999;de Jong & Van der Steen, 1998;Lloyd, 1999;Lloyd & Feldman, 2002;H. Rose & Rose, 2000;Sterelny & Griffiths, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology.

Lickliter¹,

Honeycutt²

2003

Psychological Bulletin

292

307

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a conceptual revolution in the biological sciences over the past several decades. Evidence from genetics, embryology, and developmental biology has converged to offer a more epigenetic, contingent, and dynamic view of how organisms develop. Despite these advances, arguments for the heuristic value of a gene-centered, predeterministic approach to the study of human behavior and development have become increasingly evident in the psychological sciences during this time. In this article, the authors review recent advances in genetics, embryology, and developmental biology that have transformed contemporary developmental and evolutionary theory and explore how these advances challenge gene-centered explanations of human behavior that ignore the complex, highly coordinated system of regulatory dynamics involved in development and evolution.The prestige of success enjoyed by the gene theory might become a hindrance to the understanding of development by directing our attention solely to the genome. . . . Already we have theories that refer the processes of development to genic action and regard the whole performance as no more than the realization of the potencies of the genes. Such theories are altogether too one-sided. (Harrison, 1937, p. 370) There is growing consensus in popular culture that by understanding genes and the mutual interactions of the proteins derived from them it is possible to understand all of life, including human nature. Psychology is no stranger to this perspective. As most psychologists are aware, a blend of ethology and sociobiology known as evolutionary psychology has gained increasing attention and recognition over the past several decades. Arguments for the heuristic value of a gene-centered, evolutionary approach to the study of human behavior have become increasingly evident in mainstream psychology journals (i.e., Buss & Schmitt, 1993;Buss & Shackelford, 1997;Cosmides & Tooby, 1994a;Ellis, 1998;Tooby & Cosmides, 1990a), and popular texts promoting this perspective have likewise flourished in recent years (i.e., Allman, 1994;Buss, 2000;Dennett, 1995;Gazzaniga, 1992;Pinker, 1994Pinker, , 1997Pinker, , 2002R. Wright, 1994). Fueled in large part by the influence of sociobiology on the behavioral sciences over the past several decades, proponents of evolutionary psychology assert that applying insights from evolutionary theory to explanations of human behavior will stimulate more fruitful research programs and provide a powerful framework for discovering evolved psychological mechanisms thought to be forged by natural selection operating over thousands of generations (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000Buss, 1989Buss, , 1991Charlesworth, 1986;Tooby & Cosmides, 1990b).Ideas gleaned from evolutionary biology have certainly influenced theory building in psychology (see Cairns, 1998;Cairns, Gariepy, & Hood, 1990;Edelman, 1989;Gottlieb, 1991Johnston, 1985;Sameroff, 1983). There is little doubt that the incorporation of evolutionary principles and perspectives into the psychological sc...

show abstract

“…But, as Eagleton (1991) wryly observes, ideology is like halitosis; it is what other people have. Indeed, as we saw earlier -and leaving aside critiques of scientific impartiality (see Fuller, 1993) -even on its own terms, EP is less 'scientific' than its supporters might suppose, leaving it methodologically challenged and deeply infused with normative assumptions of fitness (De Jong & Van der Steen, 1998). Moreover, as Haraway (1991) has demonstrated, EP does owe much of this intellectual legacy to sociobiology, including, inter alia: its preoccupation with genes as survival machines; its focus on sexual investment strategies for genetic profit; and, its objective of 'balancing' the social with the biological through what she calls 'sociotechnical systems management' (see also H. .…”

Section: Ep and The Appeal Of Distal Explanations Of Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 94%

Yabba-Dabba-Doo! Evolutionary Psychology and the Rise of Flintstone Psychological Thinking in Organization and Management Studies

Sewell

2004

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seven years have passed since Nigel Nicholson published his manifesto for evolutionary psychology (EP) in Human Relations. Given EP's continued popularity, this article undertakes a timely reappraisal of its assumptions and practical implications. In particular, it assesses EP's claim to unify the social and natural sciences by establishing a foundation for psychology in the evolutionary biological sciences. I demonstrate that EP is found wanting in both these areas: it cannot satisfy the rigorous demands of experimental evolutionary biology and does not deal well with some of the key problems faced by mainstream psychologists. As a result, EP's claims as they pertain to management and organizations are speculative and highly normative, despite vigorous protestations to the contrary. K E Y W O R D S biological sciences controversy Darwin evolutionary psychology management organizations From walking with cavemen to working with cavemenIn the recent BBC series, Walking with Cavemen, Robert Winston -the wellknown scientist and television presenter -made a startling observation. Reflecting on the lives of our hominid ancestors he quipped that much of 9 2 3 Human Relations

show abstract

Biological thinking in evolutionary psychology: Rockbottom or quicksand?

Cited by 23 publications

References 41 publications

Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy

Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy

Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology.

Yabba-Dabba-Doo! Evolutionary Psychology and the Rise of Flintstone Psychological Thinking in Organization and Management Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About